Report to Congress nonpoint source pollution in the U.S

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

LWUd 3UIN O"ke of
EwowamrAnUA P Otm an WYOW Plow -n Overitions
Agency VYstw Planning Division
washingm, OC 20460

F
w'
fIEPA Report to Congress:

Nonpoint Source Pollution
in the U.S.

rD223--
.R44
3.984

Printed on Recycled Paper

REPORT TO CONGRESS:
NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION IN THE U.S,

PREPARED BY THE

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF WATER PROGRAM OPERATIONS
WATER PLANNING DIVISION

LIBRARY
IT NOAA/CCEH
1990 HOBSON AVE.
CHAS. SC 29408-2623

JANUARY 1984

The in4 'o-7'"co in this report was prepared with the
assistd.11, r The Synectics Group, Inc. under Contract
No. 68-131-6629. To prepare this report, the existing
body of literature and research studies on nonpoint
source pollution was reviewed. Interviews were con-
ducted with State water pollution staff, Federal agency
personnel, research foundations, and national represen-
tatives of a variety of organizations. Preliminary
findings were identified and presented to a workgroup
for comment and revisions. The information presented in
this final report reflects an attempt to present a
balanced and representative analysis of current informa-
tion available on the subject.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . i x

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii
CHAPTER 1: NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE NONPOINT
SOURCE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
INTRODUCTION . . . . . I I I .I I I I I I I I I I 1 0 6 1-1
WATER QUALITY: PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE . . . . . . . . 1-1
NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION IS A PERVASIVE
PROBLEM 1-3
A CONTINUING PROBLEM: NONPOINT SOURCE
POLLUTION DEFIES GENERALIZATION NATIONALLY . . . . . . 1-9
COMPARING POINT AND NONPOINT SOURCES OF
POLLUTION IS IMPORTANT To DECISION-MAKING . . . . . . 1-12
NONPOINT SOURCES ARE DIFFICULT TO MANAGE . . . . . . . 1-16
ECONOMIC BENEFITS FROM CONTROLLING NONPOINT
SOURCES OF POLLUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-17

CHAPTER 2: IDENTIFICATION OF HIGH-PAYOFF PROBLEM
AREAS AND EXPECTED RESULTS . . 1 8 1 0 a # I I I I I a 1 1 2-1
SKILLFUL TARGETIONG LEADS To HIGH PAYOFF . . I I I 1 6 2-1
TARGETING: A NARROWER Focus YIELDS RESULTS . . . . . . 2-1
FOUR BASIC ELEMENTS CREATE EFFECTIVE
TARGETING . . . . . . . . . . . . I I I 1 0 9 1 1 9 a 2-2
THE SELECTION OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
INVOLVES KEY CHOICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
TIMING AFFECTS IMPLEMENTATION OF BMPs . . . . . . . . 2-4
TARGETING STRATEGIES: A SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4
INTRODUCTION To NONPOINT SOURCE CATEGORIES . . . . . . 2-5

PAGE,,

AGRICULTURAL NONPOINT SOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6

NATURE OF THE PROBLEM . . . . . . 2-6

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR AGRICULTURE . . . . . . 2-12

SUMMARY: REDUCTION OF AGRICULTURAL NONPOINT
SOURCE PROBLEMS IS ACHIEVABLE 2-13

SILVICULTURAL NONPOINT SOURCES . . . . . . . . 2-14

NATURE OF THE PROBLEM 2-14

SILVICULTURAL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES . . . . . . . 2-17

SUMMARY: METHODS FOR ADDRESSING SILVICULTURAL
NoNPOINT SOURCES ARE WELL UNDERSTOOD . . . . . . . . . 2-18

MINING NONPOINT SOURCES . . . . I I I a I # I I I I I I a 8 2-19

NATURE OF THE PROBLEM . . . . I I I I I 1 04 0 0 1 8 2-19

MINING BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES$ a I a I II a I 1 0 2-23

SUMMARY: ABANDONED MINE PROBLEMS CONTINUE
TO PRESENT SERIOUS WATER QUALITY CONCERNS .2-25

CONSTRUCTION NONPOINT SOURCES$ 2

NATURE OF THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-20

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR CONTROLLING
CONSTRUCTION EROSION . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 2-28

SUMMARY: NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION FROM
CONSTRUCTION CAN BE CONTROLLED. 2-30
URBAN NONPOINT SOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-32
NATURE OF THE PROBLEM 2-32
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR URBAN AREAS . . . . . . 2-35
SUMMARY: CONTROL OF NONPOINT SOURCE RUNOFF FROM
DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS WILL BE DIFFICULT . . . . . . . 2-36

PAGE

CHAPTER 3: CURRENT PROGRAMS DIRECTED AT
CONTROLLING NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION . . ... . . . . . . . 3-1

INTRODUCTION@ a i o i i a I I I I 1 6 a I I I I I I a 3-1

AN OVERVIEW OF STATE NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAMS . . . . 3-2

AN OVERVIEW OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5

NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAMS IN AGRICULTURE . . . . . . . 3-6
NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAMS IN SILVICULTURE . . . . . . . 3-10
NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAMS IN MINING. 3-11
NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAMS IN CONSTRUCTION, 3-13
NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAMS FOR URBAN AREAS . . . . . . . 3-14

PROGRAMS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-16

CHAPTER 4: LOOKING AHEAD: MANAGING NONPOINT SOURCES . . . . 4-1

INTRODUCTION . . . . 4-1

WATER QUALITY MUST BE SYSTEMATICALLY
MANAGED AT THE STATE LEVEL . . . . . . . . . 4-1

KEY COMPONENTS OF SUCCESSFUL STATE PR06RAMS:
HIGH PAYOFFj CORRECT STRATEGYj AND COOPERATION . . . . 4-2

FEDERAL NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAMS CAN PROVIDE
IMPORTANT ASSISTANCE TO STATE PROGRAMS$ .4-12

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . I I I I 1 4-13

APPENDIX A: EXAMPLES OF BEST MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES FOR SELECTED NONPOINT SOURCES . . . . . . . . . . A-1

APPENDIX B: FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS
TO CONTROL NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTANTS . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

LIST OF TABLES

PAGE

TABLE 1.1 SUMMARY OF TRENDS IN SELECTED WATER
QUALITY CONSTITUENTS AND PROPERTIES. AT
NASQAN STATIONS 1974-81 . I I I I I I I # I $1$ 1-2
TABLE 1.2 NONPOINT SOURCE PROBLEMS BY STATE . . . . . . . 1-5
TABLE 1.3 NONPOINT SOURCE WATER QUALITY IMPACTS . . . . . 1-1
TABLE 1.4 POINT AND NONPOINT SOURCE CONTRIBUTIONS
OF SPECIFIC POLLUTANTS (AVERAGE OF
STATES' PERCENT CONTRIBUTIONS) . . . . . . . . . 1-14
TABLE 2.1 PRIORITY AGRICULTURAL-POLLUTION PROBLEMS
BY STATE .. . . . . . . . 1 0 6 4 0 4 0 6 1 9 1 6 2-10
TABLE 2.2 GENERAL DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL
NONPOINT SOURCE PROBLEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11
TABLE 2.3 ACRES OF LAND DISTURBED BY SURFACE
MINING (JULY 1, 1977) . . . . . . . . .
I I I # 2 2
TABLE 2.4 MOST FREQUENTLY DETECTED PRIORITY
POLLUTANTS IN NURP URBAN RUNOFF SAMPLES . . . . 2-34
TABLE 3.1 SUMMARY OF STATE NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAMS . . . 3-3
TABLE 3.2 EPA's MAJOR NONPOINT-SOURCE-RELATED
PROGRAMS. . . , - I I a I . . - - 0 1 6 1 9 3-17
TABLE Ad EXAMPLES OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR
AGRICULTURE . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . A-1
TABLE A.2 EXAMPLES OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR
SILVICULTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-3
TABLE A.3 EXAMPLES OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND
RECLAMATION TECHNIQUES FOR MINING . . . . . . . A-6
TABLE A.4 EXAMPLES OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR
CONSTRUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-8
TABLE A.5 EXAMPLES OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR
URBAN AREAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-, ti

LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)

PAGE

TABLE B.1 STATE PROGRAMS ADDRESSING AGRICULTURAL
NONPOINT SOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1
TABLE B.2 USDA PROGRAMS AFFECTING AGRICULTURAL
NONPOINT SOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . B-3
TABLE B.3 SUMMARY OF STATE SILVICULTURAL WATER
QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . B-4
TABLE B.4 USDA PROGRAMS AFFECTING SILVICULTURAL
NONPOINT SOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-6
TABLE B.5 FEDERAL PROGRAMS AFFECTING MINING
NONPOINT SOURCES. . . . I I I 1 0 9 1 a I I a I B-7
TABLE B.6 STATUS OF STATE LEGISLATION FOR SEDIMENT
CONTROL IN CONSTRUCTION B-8

LIST OF FIGURES

PAGE

FIGURE 1.1 RELATIVE CONTRIBUTIONS OF POINT AND
NONPOINT SOURCE LOADINGS BY STATE . . . . . . . 1-15
FIGURE 2.1 PERCENTAGE OF CROPLAND ON WHICH THE
RATE OF SHEET AND RILL EROSION ExCEEDS
THE SOIL Loss TOLERANCE LEVEL (1977) . . . . . 2-7
FIGURE 2.2.- UNITED STATES PESTICIDE USAGE: TOTAL
AND ESTIMATED AGRICULTURAL SECTOR
SHARE, 1964-1980 ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9
FIGURE 2.3 DISTRIBUTION OF COMMERCIAL FOREST LAND
By REGION (JANUARY 1, 1977)a e a e e s 1 9 * 4 2-16
FIGURE 2.4 OWN'ERSHIP OF COMMERCIAL FOREST LAND
BY REGION (JANUARY li 1977) . . . . . .. . . . 2 2-16
FIGURE 2.5 REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF CONSTRUCTION
SITE SEDIMENT Loss . I I I I 1 8 9 0 9 1 1 1 a 2-27
FIGURE 2.6 EROSION FROM CONSTRUCTION SITES . . . . . . . . 2-27
FIGURE 2.7 COMPARISON OF SEDIMENT YIELDS FROM A WELL
PLANNED AND A POORLY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT . . . 2-29
FIGURE 2.8 EFFECT OF GROUND COVER ON URBAN RUNOFF . . . . 2-33
FIGURE A.1 COST EFFECTIVENESS OF URBAN BMPs IN
ORANGE COUNTYj FLORIDA . . . . a I I I 1 9 A-10

viii

PREFACE

PUIRPOSE OF THE REPORT

The U.S. Congress is addressing the problem of nonpoint source water pollu-
tion. The House Report No. 98-223 requested that the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA):

"analyze the extensive body of past research in nonpoint source
problems to identify and rank the highest payoff problem areas
and submit a report by January 1, 1984, outlining specific
strategies and approaches recomnended for addressing nonpoint
sources in a cost-effective manner."

In response to this Congressional request, the report that follows examines
the nature and magnitude of nonpoint source water quality problems and
outlines the key components of State strategies to prevent and control such
pollution. The focus of the report is the identification of high-payoff
approaches: i.e., approaches to nonpoint source control that are likely to
result in the greatest water quality improvements.

Recently, many have identified the need to focus more attention on controlling
nonpoint sources in specific areas in order to achieve water quality goals.
This report is designed to respond to the Congressional request and to assist
EPA, States, and local governments with their continuing efforts to develop
nonpoint source control programs.

The report:

9 Describes wiiat is known (and not known) about the nature and
extent of water quality problems caused by nonpoint source
pollution and some available best management practices to
address these problems (Chapters 1 and 2);

e Compares point and nonpoint source po.llutant loadings
nationally (Chapter 1);

e Identifies an approach for targeting high-payoff problem
areas (Chapter 2);

# Examines the technical, institutional,* and economic factors
and data gaps that affect the successful control of nonpoint
source pollution (Chapters 1, 2 and 3);

0 Identifies current Federal, State, and local programs that
address the problem (Chapter 3);

*For purposes of this report, "institutional" refers to the range of public
and private entities that constitute the framework through which nonpoint
source control programs are implemented.

@ Highl ig hts successful strategies for controlling nonpoint
source pollution and identifies some innovative approaches
(Chapters 2 and 3); and
9 Outlines the key components of State strategies to prevent
and control nonpoint source pollution (Chapter 4).

SCOPE OF THE REPORT

Nonpoint sources of water *pollution are both diffuse in nature and difficult
to define. In general, nonpoint source pollutants are. carried over and
through the ground by rainfall and snownelt, but a variety of* legal- distinc-
tions complicates the issue. When runoff is collected and discharged through
a pipe (e.g., in combined storm and sanitary sewers, or in cases of runoff
from active mines), it is usually considered to be a point source. There are
exceptions, however, such as the Clean Water Act's definition of irrigation
return flow as a nonpoint source,, even though the water is collected and
returned to the stream through a discrete channel or pipe.
Given the expansive definition of nonpoint sources, the potential scope of
this report was tremendous. EPA, therefore, elected to. li.mit its focus to
those nonpoint source categories that are generally recognized as the major
causes of nonpoint source pollution: agriculture, mining, urban runoff,
silviculture, and construction. The categories addressed are both tradi-
tionally considered to be within the framework of a nonpoint source program
and to present some of the most widespread and/or serious water quality
problems.

Other sources which are sometimes considered nonpoint sources are not
addressed for a variety of reasons. The management of ' leachate and runoff
from solid and hazardous weste residuals is directly addressed under the
legislative framework provided by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLW. Combined sewer overflows are managed as point sources
and handled withi, he context of EPA's Construction Grants Program.
Pollution from indii%jual, small-scale wastewater systems is addressed by a
component of EPA's Construction Grants -Program--the Small Alternative Waste
System Program. Because of time constraints, water quality impacts due to
instream hydrologic modifications such as dams, dredging, and channelization
are not addressed in this report. The nature of these water quality problems
and associated strategies and solutions is quite different from those arising
from other nonpoint sources. With the exception of the Clean Water Act's
Section 404 program (addressing the disposal or deposit of dredged or fill
material in water bodies), programs to address pollution from hydrologic
modification are lar-ely experimental in nature. In addition, data gathering
is hampered by the -.,remely diverse nature of research and program informa-
tion.

Finally, the report -cuses on surface water, although ground water concerns
are identified and described where appropriate. The Agency is in the process
of developing a comprehensive ground water strategy. This strategy will
provide a central framework for ground water management.

FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS

The issue of nonpoint source pollution control and management has been identi-
fied by the Administrator and EPA's Regional Offices as a significant and
national environmental concern for the 1980s. The Agency recognizes that
pollution from nonpoint sources has adverse effects on water quality in
certain areas across the country. EPA will continue to focus its efforts to:

0 Coordinate its policies and activities with Federal agencies
implementing programs related to nonpoint source control;

* Encourage States to implement nonpoint source contr ol
programs;
* Encourage States to use available funds under Sections
205(g), 205(j), 106, and 314 of the Clean Water Act for
nonpoint source programs;

9 Disseminate information to States to develop or update their
nonpoint source programs for specific water bodies;

* Continue distributing information rin methodologies for
nonpoint source analysis gathered through its Nationwide
Urban Runoff Program; and

* Evaluate, document, and distribute information on innova-
tive, cost-effective techniques for controlling or miti-
gating nonpoint and point sources of pollution.

It is hoped that this report to Congress will provide data to assist ongoing
and future nonpoint source control efforts. The report incorporates the
latest information on nonpoint source pollution problems and their resolution
that could be gathered from current literature and interviews with those
knowledgeable in the field. Although gaps in problem assessment, control
technology, and program approaches remain, many nonpoint source control
efforts have been initiated at the State and local levels and provide a sound
basis for intensified nonpoint source management activities.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SOME REMAINING WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS
ARE CAUSED BY NONPOINT SOURCES

Significant achievements toward attainment of water quality objectives have
been accomplished by controlling point sources of pollution in the 11 years
since the passage of the Clean Water Act. Reductions in point source
pollution has illuminated the nonpoint source contribution to water quality
problems. A variety'of data gaps preclude the development of a consistent
national summary of nonpoint-source-related water quality problems. Data-
related difficulties reduce our ability to accurately quantify the nature and
extent of water pollution caused by. these sources. Nationally available
reports, such as State 305(b) reports,-are not consistent with each other and
are not complete with respect to all nonpoint source types. Thus, this report
presents wbat is known about nonpoint sources across the U.S., rather than
providing a national summary of nonpoint source data into a single bottom
line.
A review of informat'ion submitted by EPA Regions and the States on nonpoint
sources is illuminating, however. Six out of the ten EPA Regions assert that
nonpoint source pollution is the principal remaining cause of water quality
problems. Half of the States report that nonpoint sources are a major or
significant cause of their remaining water quality problems, and virtually
every State reports sane kind of water quality problem related to these
sources. Additionally, 11 States identify nonpoint sources as the major cause
of water quality problems.

Technical evidence from a variety of sources suggests that lakes, reservoirs,
and estuaries may be particularly vulnerable to pollution from nonpoint
sources.

STATE 14ANAGEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION
IS THE KEY TO IMPROVED WATER QUALITY

Managing nonpoint sources of pollution presents complex control problems.
Nonetheless, effective steps can be taken to reduce pollutant loads from
nonpoint sources. The localized nature of nonpoint source pollution makes a
national strategy ineffective by not providing enough flexibility and speci-
ficity to solve local problems. State management of nonpoint source control
programs is the key to achieving water quality objectives. As the central
manager of the water quality program, the State must establish whether a water
quality problem is related to nonpoint sources, and determine which of these
problems will receive its priority attention. It is at the State level that
local conditions can be properly weighed to determine what type of strategy is
needed, wbether progress toward achievement of objectives is being made, and
what adjusbnents are needed for a more effective strategy.

FIVE SIGNIFICANT NONPOINT SOURCES
ARE DISCUSSED IN THIS REPORT

The principal sources of nonpoint pollution vary between Regions and between
States, but agricultural sources are identified as the most pervasive nonpoint
source in every Region. Pollutant loadings caused by runoff from urban lands
and by mining activities are the next most commonly reported nonpoint source
problems. Urban runoff contributes to localized water quality problems and is
a source of concern because it may contain toxic heavy metals. Where they
occur, water quality problems from abandoned mines can cause particularly
severe impacts, in sane cases resulting in the devastation of stream life.
For abandoned mines and densely developed urban areas, cost-effective remedial
measures may be hard to implement. Additional nonpoint sources -of localized
concern include silvicultural activities and construction erosion. The viater
quality impacts from both of these sources are not as pervasive on a national
level as the other sources described in this report.

TARGETING HIGH-PAYOFF NONPOINT SOURCE PROBLEMS HAS
PRODUCED SUBSTANTIAL WATER QUALITY IMMVE14EKT

For most water quality problems caused by nonpoint sources, substantial water
quality improvements can be--and have been--achieved cost effectively through
careful targeting of control activities. Targeting high-payoff areas requires
identifying both the priority water bodies for wtich the adoption of a
nonpoint source control program will have significant benefits and the best
management practices that will lead to the greatest improvements for the least
cost. While general statements about problems and potential solutions are
possible at the national level , the analysis and decision-making required for
effective implementation of targeted controls must take place on a local
level .

The key to careful targeting of control activities to max imize water quality
benefits is a watershed-based analysis. A thorough watershed analysis will :
(1) identify those use impairment problems that are caused specifically by
nonpoint sources, (2) rank priority water bodies for concentrated attention,
(3) pinpoint the specific land management practices giving rise to the
problems, and (4) design a system of cost-effectivb management practices that
can reduce the nonpoint source pollutant load to the watershed.

SITE-SPECIFIC DECISION-MRKING, NOT UNIFORM,
77,r,HNOLOGICAL CONTROLS, IS REQUIRED

The basic approach taken by the Clean Water Act for managing point sources--
that is, the application of uniform technological controls to classes of
dischargers--is not appropriate for the management of nonpoint sources.
Flexible, site-specific, and source-specific decision-making is the key to
effective control of nonpoint source- . Site-specific decisions must consider
the nature of the watershed, the na'@ure of the waterbody, the nature of the
nonpoint source(s) , the use impairment caused by the nonpoint source(s) , and
the range of management practices available to control nonpoint source

Xiii

Pol I ution The actual site-specific selection of particular management prac-
tices to control nonpoint source pollution (called Best Management Practices
[BMPS]) will involve local environmental and economic considerations, as well
as considerations of effectiveness and acceptability of the practice.

CURRENT ACTIVITIES ARE ADDRESSING
THE NONPOINT SOURCE PROBLEM

Currently, some activities and resources are devoted to the identification and
control of nonpoint source problems at the Federal, State, and local levels of
government. Although most 'of these programs do not receive their impetus
from a high-priority concern for water quality, many of these efforts,
nevertheless, hold promise for significant improvements in water quality. For
example:

@ Agricultural pollutants are addressed by a variety of State
programs containing educational, training, and cost-sharing
components and are coordinated at the local level by soil
and water conservation districts, with assistance from
several branches of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
These programs are successfully encouraging the adoption of
conservation practices that reduce erosion from farmland and
pollution from other agricultural practices.

* Water quality problems caused by silviculture are being
addressed in some areas by State regulatory and educational
programs. Regulatory programs address nonpoint source
pollution from forestry practices in 11 States. Various
educational and training programs are being provided to
small woodlot owners and operators to encourage better
management practices that will reduce nonpoint source
pollutant loads. Sane of these programs were developed
jointly by the U.S. Forest Service and EPA. In addition,
national forest timber sale contracts require control of
poll'utants from forestry activities on Federal lands.

e Sixteen States have enacted construction erosion and sedi-
mentation laws to control runoff of sediment from construc-
tion sites. In addition, many localities in other States
have adopted local ordinances to control construction
erosion.

ECONOMIC BENEFITS CAN BE ACHIEVED BY
CONTROLLING NONPOINT SOURCES OF POLLUTION

Studies completed by EPA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and others show
that it "pays to control nonpoint source pollution." For example, economic
benefits can accrue to the farmer from reduced cultivation costs if conserva-
tion tillage is employed as a means of controlling erosion. Additionally,
offsite benefits, both direct and indirect, can accrue to local communities.
For example, improved recreational opportunities and reduced dredging costs
can result from decreasing siltation caused by runoff from nonpoint sources.

Xiv

GAPS EXIST IN MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
TO NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL

A variety of land management practices (BMPs) to control nonpoint source
pollutants have already been shown to be effective. Additional research to
identify and demonstrate the effectiveness of EMPs is not necessary for most
nonpoint sources. Programs to ensure technical transfer of these proven
management practices provide the means to fill the gaps.
Notwithstanding the demonstrated effectiveness of many BMPs, and despite the
range of programs being mounted, significant gaps remain in the manner and
extent to which specific nonpoint source problems are addressed. Although
some of these gaps have to do with technical difficulties in identifying and
characterizing the nonpoint source problem, many more relate. to the management
of these problems. For example, although agricultural nonpoint sources are
thought to be the most pervasive type of nonpoint source pollution, only 19
States administer assistance programs for the implementation of BMPs .
Additionally, most of these agricultural programs were.originally established
for the purpose of controlling soil erosion, not for achieving water quality
goals. Recently, a few States have modified their prograrns to include water
.quality objectives.

INTERAGENCY COOPERATION HAS
ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS
Effective implementation of nonpoint source controls requires close coordina-
tion between State water quality agencies and those agencies with outreach
programs that provide a network of services designed to reach landowners and
operators and help them change the way they manage their land. These services
are derived from Federal, State, and local programs oriented primarily toward
other missions. Only EPA and State/local water resource agencies have under-
taken protection of water quality as a primary goal. Although relying on the
outreach capability of other agencies for implementation of nonpoint source
controls works due to the record of mutual trust and effectiveness these
agencies have forged. in the field, there are also sane drawbacks to such a
dependency. For instance, the differing priorities and objectives of the
parent agencies may slow efforts toward tacklifig nonpoint source pollution
problems.

VO LUNTARY EDUCATION AND TRAINING PROGRAMS ARE NOT ALWAYS ENOUGH

State programs to manage certain nonpoint sources currently rely heavily on
voluntary education and tri7i`,ning programs to encourage adoption of controls,
While we have had these vol programs for a long time, the res@lts appea
spotty because there has not been a focused approach that targets resources to
meet water quality objectives. Additionally, improving management practices
to control some nonpoint sources of poll uti.on is sometimes' beyond the econom. ic
interest of the people generating this pollution. In such cases, sole
reliance on voluntary programs is not likely to accomplish adequate reductions
in pollutant loads and, as a result, other approaches may be needed (e.g.,
economic incentives or regulations). Because of the diversity of options and

the high publ ic costs associated with implementi ng and enforcing nonpoint
source control programs, supplements to voluntary programs must be carefully
evaluated on the basis of need, social and econcmic equity, and effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

The development of carefully planned management strategies at the State level
is the key to controlling nonpoint sources and achieving water quality goals.
Targeting of specific areas is necessary to ensure that voluntarily-
implemented controls will achieve water quality goals. Voluntary implementa-
tion of management practices can be successful but must be targeted- to
specific areas. Where they are not successful, problems could remain
unaddressed until new approaches are tried, including effective State
cost-sharing, incentive, and/or regulatory programs. While development of
effective management strategies at the State level is key to achieving water
quality objectives, implementation of appropriate control measures will
require a coordinated effort on the part of all levels of government.

xvi

CHAPTER I

Nature and Extent of the Nonpoint Source Problem

INTRODUCTION

Eleven years ago the United States made an unprecedented commitment to the
restoration and enhancement of the physical, chemical, and biological inte-
grity of its waters. The drafters of the Clean Water Act clearly recognized
that achievement of its goals would be expensive; vould require major commit-
ments from all levels of government, industry, and private individuals; and
would necessitate the reduction of pollutant loads being discharged from. both
point and nonpoint* sources.
Significant achievements have been made nationally in the protection and
enhancement of water quality. Much of this progress, however, has been accom-
plished by controlling the many industrial and municipal point sources. In
many parts of the country, pollutant loads from nonpoint sources present con-
tinuing problems for achieving water quality goals and maintaining designated
uses.

WATER QUALITY: PROGRESS HAS BEEN NADE
In the face of mounting populations-and pollution loads, the progress that has
been made in water quality can be regarded as a substantial achievement. The
population of the United States grew by 23 million between 1970 and 1980.[1]
During this same period, a major indicator of econanic activity--the gross
national prod uct--ex perienced a 36% increase. (2) Analysis of water quality
data gathered fran across the nation during that same decade shows that trends
in water quality conditions have remained stable for most water bodies. Water
quality data are aggregated nationally by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in
its National Stream Quality Accounting Network (NASQAN). For al I water
pollutants monitored nationally, most NASQAN stations show no change in levels
(see Table 1.1). The National Fisheries Survey (also known as the Aquatic
Life Survey) conducted jointly by EPA and the U..S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) indicates the same stability in the condition of fisheries in rivers and
streams.[3]

*Nonpoint source pollution is generally carried over and through soil and
ground cover via rainfall and snownelt. Unlike "point" sources of pollution
(mainly industrial and municipal effluent discharge pipes), nonpoint sources
are extremely diffuse and can cane frcrn any land area. iIt must be kept in
mind that these definitions are very general; legal and regulatory decisions
have sametimes resulted in certain sources being assigned to either the point
or nonpoint source categories because of considerations other than their
manner of discharge (for example, irrigation return flows are designated as
anonpoint sources" by law, even though the discharge is through a discrete
conveyance)

TABLE 1. 1 SUMMARY OF TRENDS IN SELECTED WATER QUALITY
CONSTITUENTS AND PROPERTIES AT NASQAN STATIONS 1974-81

Number of Stations with:

Constituents Increasing* No Decreasing* Total
and Properties Trend s Change Trends Stations

Temperature 39 218 46 303
pH 74 174 56 304
Alkalinity 18 207 79 304
Sulfate 82 182 40 304
Nitrate-nitrite 76 203 25 304
Ammonia 31 221. 30 282
Total organic carbon 36 230 13 279
Phosphorus 39 232 30 301
Calcium 23 198 83 304
Magnesium 50 208 46 304
Sodium 103 173 28 304
Potassium 69 193 42 304
Chloride 104 164 36 304
Silica 48 213 41 302
Dissolved sol ids 68 183 51 302
Suspended sediment 44 204 41 289
Conductivity 69 193 43 305
Turbidity 42 199 18 259
Fecal coliform bacteria 19 216 34 269
Fecal streptococcus bacteria 2 190 78 270
Phytoplankton 22 234 44 300
Dissolved trace metals
Arsenic 68 228 11 307
Barium 4 81 1 86
Boron 2 15 3 20
Cadmium 32 264 7 303
Chromium 12 152 2 166
Copper 6 83 6 95
Iron 28 258 21 307
Lead 5 232 76 313
Manganese 30 250 19 299
Mercury 8 194 2 204
Selenium 2 201 21 224
Silver 1 32 0 33
Zinc 19 251 32 302

*The terms "increasingn and Ndecreasing" refe-- to the change in the recorded
level of the constituent or property. For example, an increasing treR in pH
is an improvement, but an increasing trend in dissolved solids indicates
degradation.
Source: Unpublished data from USGS (Smith and Alexander, 1983, in press) .

It must be noted ' ho wey er, that both the NASQAN network data and the National
Fisheries Survey information have significant limitations in terms of the
scope of their coverage and the nature of the information gathered. Neither
source, for example, addresses water quality in lakes or estuaries. Indeed,
nationally aggregated data often fail to show the whole picture. The most
extensive water quality data are generally collected at the State and local
levels of government. These data are collected for the purpose of managing
individual water quality programs, and are rarely recorded in a uniform
manner. Thus, this valuable local information rarely can be statistically
compared or even compiled to build a valid profile of the nation's water
quality.* Although extensive State water quality data are stored in EPA's
computerized STORET system, the lack of comparable monitoring systems and data
across States makes national organization of this data difficult..
Individual reports from the States and from EPA Regional offices, however,
suggest that pollution control investments by industry, by States and munici-
palities, and by the Federal government have paid off. The gross levels of
water pollution common at the time the Clean Water Act was enacted, for the
most part, have been abated. Improved water quality--including better biolo-
gical health, fisheries, and recreational opportunities--has been noted in all
parts of the country. In 1980, EPA documented achievements in pollution
control for a variety of water bodies.[4] The list of improved water bodies
is extensive: some major ones are the Savannah River (forming the border
between Georgia and South Carolina), the Potomac River (between Maryland and
Virginia, below Washington, D.C), the Willamette River (in Oregon), Escambia
Bay (in Florida), and some of the Great Lakes.

NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION IS A PERVASIVE PROBLEM

Nonpoint Sources Are a Significant Cause
of Remaining Water Quality Problems

Nonpoint sources play a major role in contributing to many of the water
quality problems that remain. The NASOAN trends analysis indicates that many
of the pollutants are showing worsening trends more often than improv ing
trends.[5] Some of those pollutants that are showing worse ing trends are
contributed primarily by nonpoint rather than point sources. These pollutants
are ni trate-ni trite, phosphorus, sodium, chloride, and sediment (measured as
dissolved solids and turbidity). In the draft EPA/FWS National Fisheries
Survey, State fishery biologists cited nonpoint sources more frequently as the
cause of fair or poor quality fishery waters than point sources.
Evidence gathered under the Clean Water Act's Clean Lakes Program suggests
that lakes and impoundments may be particularly affected by nonpoint source
pollutants. In a recent survey conducted by the North American Lake Manage-
ment Society, all but one of 38 States participating stated that nonpoint

*The EPA has provided a grant to the Association of State and Interstate Water
Pollution Control Administrators to develop a system for aggregating State
data on water quality. The result of this project--a comprehensive report on
the status of water quality--is planned for presentation to Congress in 1984.

1-3

sources are seriously affecting lake water quality. More than three-quarters
of all lakes in EPA Regions 2, 5, 6, 7, and 10 were reported by States to be
seriously affected by nonpoint source pollution. Fourteen States with 24,00T
lakes (and 7.3 million acres of water) reported that more than 75% of lakes
were seriously affected.[6]

VirtuallZ Eveg State Identifies Nonpoint
5ource Water Pollution ProbTew

The 1982 State Section 305(b) reports--water qualit reports submitted
biennially by the States to EPA pursuant to Section 305(t) of the Clean Water
Act--indicate that virtually all States have some water qual-ity problems
caused by nonpoint sources. Approximately one-fifth of the States identify
nonpoint sources as their rajor cause of water quality problerns.[7] Half of
the States say that nonpoint sources are a major or significant cause of
remaining 'Water quality problems. Table 1.2, which illustrates these
:--idings, is derived primarily from the State Section 305(b) reports. Its
@,@ail is limited by the fact that reporting on nonpoint sources is neither
.;-;. I
complete nor consistent in these State reports.
Six out of the ten EPA Regions assert that pollution generated by nonpoint
sources is the principal remaining cause of water quality problems in their
Region.[8] On a national basis, the principal sources of nonpoint pollutants
vary between Regions and between States and have been characterized in the
following manner. Agricultural activities--including those resulting from
tillage practices and animal waste management-- const i tute the most pervasive
nonpoint source problem in every Region. Nonpoint source pollutant loadings
caused b,y runoff from urban lands and from mining activities are the two npxt
most commonly cited nonpoinY -source prODlems. Uroan run-o-ff contributes -.o
locali.led water quality problems and is a source of concern because it S
likely to contain heavy metals. Mining problems, where. they occur, can
present particularly severe water quality impacts (e.g., acid mine drainage).
Nonpoint source pollution due to silvicultural activities is primarily a local
problem. Silvicultural activities can degrade the very high quality waters
that flow through forested areas and support cold-water fisheries and drinking
water supplies. The large amounts of sediment associated with construction
runoff cause localized water quality problems in those parts of the coun
experiencing significant development pressure (e.g., the Southeast, mid-South.
and Northwest).

Understandiny the Nature of Nonpoint
SURF-c-eVollution

Nonpoint sources may generate both conventional and toxic pollutants, just as
point sources do. It is importan,.,. to understand that, although nonpoint and
point sources contribute many ;' the same kinds of pollutants, these
pollutants are generated in diftlli,-ent vol umes,__c5mFi nations, and concentra-
tions during different flow regimes. Pollutants from nonpoint sources are
mobilized primarily during storm events. Pollution episodes, therefore, occur
with lower frequency and for shorter duration than occurs-in the discharge of

TABLE 1.2 NONPOINT SOURCE PROBLEMS BY STATE

Nonpoint Monpoint Source Category
Sources Agriculture Mining (Oil, Urban/
Cause A (Including Silviculture Gas, Coal. Construction Suburban
Problem? Feedlots) and Noncoal) Runoff

REGION I CT Yes
V1 Yes
MA Yes 0
NH Yes 0 0 0
RI Yes - 0
VT Major A 0 - 0

0 0
REGION 2 NJ major 0 0
MY Major 0 0 0 0 0
PR Major A 0 0 0 A
VI Yes 0 - - 0 0

REGION 3 DE Yes A 0 0
DC Yes - - 0 0
MD Yes 0 0 0 A
PA Major 0 - A - 0
VA Yes 0 - 0 0 0
wV Major 0 0 A 0 -

REGION 4 AL Yes 0 0 0 -
FL Major 0 0 0 0
GA Major 0 0 0 0 0
KY MIA j or A 0 A - -
HS Major A - 0 - 0
MC Yes 0 0 0 0
SC Yes 0 - 0 0
TK Major 0 0 0 0

REGION 5 IL Yes A 0 0 0 0
IN Yes A 0 0 -
"I Yes 0 - - -
HN Major A - - - 0
ON Major A - 0 - 0
wi Major 0 - - - 0

REGION 6 AR Major 0 0 0 - 0
LA Yes 0 0 0 0
NM Yes - 0 0 -
OK Yes 0 0 0 0 0
TX Potential 0 - 0 0 0

REGION 7 IA major A - - - 0
KS Major A - 0 0 0
MD Yes 0 - 0 0
ME Yes a - 0 0

REGION 6 CO Yes 0 0
XT Major A 0
KD Major A - - 0
SD Major A 0 0 0 0
VT Major A 0 0 0 0
WY Yes 0 - 0 - 0

REGION 9 AZ Yes 0 - 0 0
CA Yes 0 0 0 0 0
H I Major 0 - - - 0
KV Yes 0 - - - 0

REGION 10 AK Yes 0 a 0
ID major A 0 0 0 0
OR Major A 0 - 0 0
WA jor I A A 0 0

A Identified as a primary or 0 Identified as a problem 0 Identified as a Not reported upon
major problem source potential problem

Source: State 305 (b) Reports as updated by EPA Regional Office personnel.

1-5

CASE EXAMPLES:
SPECIFIC NONPOINT SOURCE WATER OUALITY PROBLEMS FROK AROUND THE COUNTRY

Chesapeake Bay: Point and Nonpoint Source Controls are Necessary
The Chesapeake Bay has undergone degradation from both point and nonpoint
sources of pollution. Nutrient leveis have increased in many areas of the
Bay, causing algal blooms in some parts. Low dissolved oxygen levels have
been observed in large expanses of the Bay; the amount of Bay water exhibiting
low or no dissolved oxygen has increased by a factor of 15 over the past 30
years. Heavy metals and toxic organic compounds have been detected at
elevated levels in both the water column and sediment, and evidence of the
bioaccumulation of some of these toxic contaminants has been observed.
Harvests of shellfish and freshwater spawning fish have declined. Submerged
aquatic vegetation has decreased throughout the Bay, and the diversity and
abundance of benthic organisms have declined as a result of the polluted
waters.

A recent exhaustive study of the Chesapeake Bay has shown that point and non-
point sources contribute significantly to nutrient loadings; point sources
(primarily sewage treatment plants) are the major contributors of phosphorus,
while nonpoint sources are the main contributors of nitrogen. Nonpoint
sources of nitrogen include agricultural activities and urban runoff, the
principal source being runoff from cropland. Like nitrogen and phosphorus,
toxic organic compounds and heavy metals are also contributed by both point
and nonpoint sources. Point sources of toxic metals and organic compounds
include industrial facilities and sewage treatment plants; nonpoint sources
include urhan runoff, dredged material disposal, atmospheric deposition, and
acid mine drainage. Many of these sources do not discharge directly into the
Bay, but rather to tributaries which ultimately empty into the Bay.F93

Nutrients in North Carolina Coastal Rivers Come From Nonpoint Sources
Several coastal rivers in eastern North Carolina have very serious water
quality problems. The impacts incl-ude massive blooms of noxious algae, major
fish kills, and declining commerical/ sport fishing and other recreational
opportunities. Catch reductions of 5n to sn% have been noted for herring',
striped bass, and catfish. In response, an intensive investigation of point
and nonpoint source nutrient loadings was conducted in the Chowan River.
Results indicate that 97% of the nitroqen load and 94% of the phosphorus load
for 1979 can be attributed to nonpoint sources, primarily those related to
agriculture such as animal operations and cropland runoff.[10]
0

Erosion Problems in Tennessee Prove to be Costly
An area in western Tennessee located within V-- Mississippi Embayment is
experiencing a severe erosion, problem. More thar 460,000 acres in an eight-
county area are seriously affected by sheet and gully erosion. Soil losses in
the more highly eroding areas are producing sediment at the rate of 2nn tons
per acre per year. These erosion rates are one of the greatest contributors
to nonpoint source water pollution in the Tennessee Valley. As a result, many

CASE EXAMPLES (CONTINUED)

acres are subject to crop and timber kills from excessive flooding and loss of
agricultural and timber lands from infertile sediment deposition and impaired
drainage. A TVA study has estimated annual damages from excessive bottornland
sedimentation at more than $11 million, including cropland, grassland, and
timber production losses as well as losses in land values.rili

Urban Runoff Can Affect Drinking Water Supplies

The Occoquan Reservoir located in the Virginia Piedmont is the major water
source for the northern Virginia communities that surround Washington, D.C.
By the late 196ns, this waterbody had begun to show significant signs of
cultural eutrophication, including fish kills, algal blooms, oxygen depletion,
and clogging of filters at the water treatment works. High levels of sewaqe
treatment were implemented and existing treatment plants in the watershed were
upgraded. Recent st,%-dies have shown that nonpoint sources (principally urban
runoff) account for' as much as 85% 'of the nitrogen load and 90% of the
phosphorus load to streams entering the reservoir.[121

Sediment Affects Recreation in the Tennessee Vall!2
Improperly managed surface mines and access roads have led to the washing away
of massive amounts of soil or sediment. At a TVA publ ic use area on the
Nickajack Lake on the Tennessee River, siltation from unreclaimed strip mines
entered an embayment to such a degree that dredging was required to keep a
boat launch useable.[13]

Nonpoint Source Water nuality Problems are Severe in Pennsy lvania
The primary nonpoint sources of pollution in the State of Pennsylvania are
mine drainage and agricultural activities. In that State, nonpoint sources
contribute the bulk of nutrient loads in the 17 lakes studied, and are
responsible for many waters that do not meet bacteriological standards. In
addition, the toxic properties of heavy metals and acid (from mining runoff),
coupled with the smothering effects of iron precipitates, render many streams
generally unsuitable for aquatic life. A 19A2 report to EPA stated that 21%
of stream miles would not meet 1983 water qual"ity objectives; acid mine
drainage is responsible for 85% of these stream miles.[14]

Montana Nonpoint Water Quality Problems Stem from
Agricultural, Silvicultural, and Minin es

In the State of Montana, the three largest water quality problems are sedi-
ment, salinity, and water depletion. Most of these problems are the conse-
quence of intensive agricultural practices on an erosive, salt-rich, and
sometimes water-poor landscam . Acids and metals from coal and metal mining
cause other serious water quality problems. Of the 2ng stream segments with
water quality problems, 84 are affected by agricultural practices, 29 by
inactive mining, and 33 by forest pract ices . r 151

pollutants from point sources. The timing (intermittent discharge caused by
rain or snow), concentration, and dilution of the pollution from nonpoint
sources constitute only part of the picture when one considers the nature of
associated water quality impacts; the transportation and ultimate fate of the
pollutant constitute the other part.
The ultimate concentration of the pollutant, as well as the total I oad
generated by the nonpoint source, depend upon the nature of the source and the
climatic conditions transporting the contaminants. The potential dilution of
pollutants during high flow must be considered against the velocity with which
pollutants are dislodged and transported. Thus, it is difficult to make
generalizations about the concentration of loads from nonpoint sources.
Studies of sediment from agricultural sources, for example, have suggested
that concentrations of sediment are at their highest during the continuing,
long-lived, and heavy rainfalls that are typical of spring rains in the
Midwest., On the other hand, concentrations of pollutants in urban runoff may
be at their highest during a medium or intense rainfall of short duration.
The initial downpour may "clean" city surfaces, and subsequent runoff may be
cleaner and have lower pollutant concentrations.
A given pollutant loading may or may not have an impact, on water quality. The
measure of actual impact must come from examination of instream effects, as
reflected in terms of impaired uses.
The movement of pollutants downstream may be a cause of further pollution
problems. For example, sediment and the pollutants associated with it mag
move some distance from their original source, and may be a source of futut
contamination and turbidity when stirred up during subsequent stonn events.
Important Pollutants fr= Nonpoint Sources
Sediment--that is. sand, silt, clay,_ and organic materials--is the largest
contributor by volume to nonpoint source pollution. Many of the other
pollutants contributed by nonpoint sources are associated with (bound to)
sediments. The water quality impact of these sediment-bound pollutants may be
different than the impact of the same pollutant dissolved in a free form via
water runoff, or from a point source discharge.. For example, phosphorus,
nitrogen, many pesticides, and metals may be more biologically available when
delivered unbound to the stream in water runoff than when nlivered in
association with sediment. One explanation for this observation is that the
sediment binds--at least temporar i I y-- other materials to it that iaitigate the
impact of the particular pollutant in question. In addition, as sediments
settle out, they bury their associated pollutants so that they are less
available. Whether or not sediments continue to mitigate the effects of
contaminants depends on a number of factors, including how easily and quickly
the pollutant will dissolve, as well as the degree to which future storm
events stir up bottom sediments and stimulate the process releasing the
material.

The impact of non point- so urce-generated pollutants depends upon the nature of
the water body to which they are delivered. Although it is difficult to
generalize at the national level, it does appear that certain types of water
bodies may be more vulnerable to pollutants from nonpoint sources than others.
Streams that support cold-water fisheries, for example, may be particularly

sensitive to the temperature alterations and habitat changes typically
associated with sedimentation. Slow-flushing lakes, reservoirs, ponds, and
estuaries retain the pollutants delivered to them for long periods of time.
Such water bodies may be particularly vulnerable to sediment deposition..
Sediment buildup, coupled with accumulating nutrient poTTIrtion, hastens the
eutrophication of impounded waters. Table 1.3 describes nonpoint source water
qual ity impacts.

Nonpoint Sources May Be an IMortant
Cause of Ground WiterLontamInatlon

Although there is no national data base to confirm it, there are examples of
the contamination of ground water by nonpoint sources. Pesticides and
nutrients applied on agricultural lands seep into ground water, as does acid
and metal drainage from deep mines.* In Arizona, for example, public wells
containing a pesticide called d ibromoc hl oro propane (DBCP) have been closed due
to contami nation. (16] In Wisconsin, contamination of ground water by the
pesticide aldicarb is being evaluated for possible public health concerns.[17]
Iowa is concerned about the increased concentrations of nitrates in ground
water in its karst regions.[18] Nitrate contamination of ground water
presents important public health concerns when that ground water is a source
of drinking water.

Where it occurs, ground water contamination is particularly troublesome. Once
contaminated, ground water is difficult if not impossible to clean up.
Natural cleansing processes may take decades or even centuries. The self-
cleansing mechanisms common to surface waters generally do not exist under-
ground. Because ground water generally moves very slowly (on a scale of only
tens or hundreds of feet per year), very little dilution takes place, and
pollution levels may remain high. The slow rate of movement, however, can
also restrict contamination, leaving some parts of an aquifer safe for use
while others remain polluted.[19]

A CONTINUING PROBLEM: NONPOINT 'SOURCE POLLUTION
DEFIES GENERALIZATION NATIONALLY

A great deal is known about nonpoint source pollution. During the past 10
years, enormous volumes of data have been gathered and research has been
conducted, but that information continues to be intractable to generalization.
Little of it has been pulled together to create a national picture. Much more
is known about nonpoint sources at the State and local levels of government
than is available through national documents. More than 200 water quality
management plans conducted under Section 208 of the Clean Water Act analyzed
nonpoint source water quality problems in every part of the country. Numerous
demonstration projects to control nonpoint source pollution have reported on
the water quality problems to which they were directed and the results of the
demonstration efforts.

*Other important sources of contaminants, such as seeptic tanks, hazardous
waste sites, and hydrologic modifications are outside the scope of this
report.

TABLE 1.3 NONPOINT SOURCE WATER QUALITY IMPACTS

PC) I uta"t Nonpoint Source(s) Water Duality and Associated ImDacts

Sediment Agriculture 0 Decrease in transmission of light through voter
Silviculture
Urban Runoff . Decrease in primary productivity (aquatic plants and phytoplankton)
Construction upon which other species feed, causing decrease in food supply.
Mining
. Obscures sources of food, habitat, hiding places. nesting sites; also
interferes with mating activities that rely on sight and delays
reproductive timing.
0 Direct effects on respiration and digestion of aquatic species (e.g.,
gill abrasion).

0 Decrease in viability of aquatic 11fe--decrease in survival rates of fish
eggs and therefore in size of fish population; affects species
composition .

0 Increase in temperature of surface layer of water--increases
stratification and reduces oxygem-mixing with lower layers, therefore
decreasing oxygen supply for supporting aquatic life.
0 Decrease in value for recreational and commercial activities:

. Reduced aesthetic value.

. Reduced sport and commercial fish populations.

- Decreased boating and swimming activities.

. Interference with navigation.

0 Increases drinking toter costs.

Salts Agriculture 0 Favors salt-tolerant aquatic species and affects the types and
Mining poDulations of fish and aquatic wildlife. Fluctuations in salinity
Urban Runoff may cause greater problem than absolute levels of salinity.
0 Reduces crop yields.

0 Destruction of habit and food source plants for fish species.
0 Reduced suitability for recreation through higher salinity levels
(skin/eye irritation) and higher evaporation rates.

0 Affects quality of drinking water.

Pesticides and Agriculture 40 Hinders photosynthesis in aquatic plants.
Herbicides Silviculture
Urban Runoff 0 Sublethal effects lower organism's resistance and Increase
Construction susceptibility to other environmental stresses.

� Can affect reproduction, respiration, growth and development
in aquatic species as well as reduce food supply and destroy habitat for
aquatic species.

� Fly definition these chemicals are poisons: if released to the aquatic
:
nvironment before degradation, can kill non-target fish and other
quatic species.

0 Some pesticides /herb ic ides can bioaccuimulate in tissues of fish and at,@er
species.

0 Some pesticides/herbic ides are carcinogenic and mutagenic and/or
teratogenic.

0 Reduces commercial/sport fishing and other recreational values.

qj Wealth hazard fran human consumption of contaminated fish/water.

TABLE 1.3 NONPOINT SOURCE WATER QUALITY IMPACTS (CONTINUED)

Pollutant Nonpoint Source(s) Water Quality and Associated Impacts

Nutrients Agriculture 9 Promotion of premature aging of lakes and estuaries--eutrophicat ion.
(Phosphorus, Silviculture
Nitrogen) Urban Runoff Algal bloans and decay of organic materials create turbid conditions
Construction that eliminate submerged aquatic vegetation and destroy habitat and
food source for aquatic animals and waterfowl.

blocms of toxic algae can affect health of swimmers and aesthetic
qualities of waterbodies (odor and murkiness).

Favors survival of less desirable fish species over
dommerc ial lyl recreational ly more desirable/ sensitive species.
Interference with boating and fishing activities.
Reduced quality of water supplies.

Reduced dissolved oxygen levels can suffocate fish species.
Reduction of waterfront property values.
NO3 (Nitrates) can cause infant health problems.

Metals Urban Runoff Accumulates in bottan sediments, posing risk. to bottom-feeding
Mining organisms and their predators.

9 Can bioaccumulate in animal tissues.

0 Can affect reproduction rates and life spans of aquatic species.

9 Disrupts food chain of aquatic environment.
0 Can affect recreational and commercial fishing.
9 Can affect water supplies.

bacteria Agriculture 0 Introduction of pathogen s--d i sease-beari ng organisms--to surface
Urban Runoff waters.

0 Reduced recreational usage.

9 Increase in treatment costs for drinking water.

0 Human health hazard.

Sulfates Mining 0 Significant changes in acidity of streams.

0 Leaching of toxic metals from soils and rock surfaces.
0 Elevated levels of acidity and metals can be lethal to fish and eliminate
entire aquatic communities.

0 Severely limits domestic and industrial water use.

Compiling this information to show even the simplest national profile ..is-
fraught with difficulty. The State Section 305(b) reports, required to be
submitted biennially by the States to EPA, are a case in.point. These
documents were analyzed for the present report and are summarized, in part, in
Table 1.2. It soon became clear that the degree to which nonpoint source
problems have been identified and summarized varies between States. Thus
differences between what the States choose to report make it difficult t@
compare States.

The information contained in this report represents the best information
available at this tir-t Several States that reviewed the draft report said
that Table 1.2 did 6c@@ @curately reflect the nonpoint source problem in their
States. The table i-,. 1, subsequently been updated by EPA Regional offices;
Regional personnel were asked to review the results of the 305(b) analysis and
add information that might more accurately reflect the nonpoint source problem
in the States in their Region..
Other individuals wrote to help correct information derived from nationally
summarized data sources such as the Department of Agriculture's Resource
Conservation Act (RCA) Appraisal. These corrections provide further indica-
tion of the inadequacy of existing national data sources. Wisconsin, for
example, informed us that animal waste is a priority nonpoint source of pollu-
tion. Again, EPA Regional off-ice staff reviewed tables describing State
problems and activities and updated information obtained from basic source
documents.

COMPARING POINT AND NONPOINT SOURCES
OF POLLUTION IS IMPORTANT TO DECISION-MAKING
Decision-makers are interested in comparing the pollutants generated by point
and nonpoint sources, and in understanding the water quality impacts asso-
ciated with thern. The reason for the interest is the need to prioritize
problems in order to achieve the most cost-effective approach for reaching
water quality goals. Comparison of point and nonpoint source pollution is
important for State governments and agencies that must identify priority
actions.

Several factors make universal comparison of point and nonpoint sources of
pollution difficult. For example, in many instances, point and nonpoint
sources discharge into and affect different water bodies. Other difficulties
of comparison have been discussed earlier. Some of them include differing
flow conditions, uncertain knowledge of transport mechanisms, and techri"al
difficulties in determining whether a particular water body is dominat-- ly
point or nonpoint sources of pollution or by natural conditions.

Decision-Making Must Have a Local Ba sis

A determination of whether specific water quality problems are caused by int
or nonpoint sources must be based on an assessment of an individual receiving
water body. States need to identify priority water bodies and make determina-
tions of needed control measures for these waters by carefully analyzing water

quality problems and the nature of the watershed. In many cases, controlling
both point and nonpoint sources may be necessary to achieve water quality
objectives. In other instances, point source discharges may already be con-
trolled to such a degree that it is more cost effective to control pollutant
loads from nonpoint sources. In the Lake Erie Basin, for example, implementa-
tion of point source controls has already resulted in high levels of phos-
phorus removal, and additional increments are now being sought through the
control of agricultural nonpoint sources.
It is difficult to compare the impact of point and nonpoint sources on water
quality at a national level. The Section 305(b) reports fran the States,
mentioned above, indicate that nonpoint sources are more important in some
States than in others. Although States may generalize that nonpoint source
pollution is a greater or lesser problem within their borders, evaluation of
relative importance for the purpose of determining priority control measures
must be made on the basis of a local evaluation that pinpoints specific
sources of pollutants.

Data Are Appearing that Make Point/Nonpoint
Source C&_Wlsons PossTW -on a National Level
Resources for the Future (RFF) developed a national water transportion model
of pollutant loadings (as opposed to water quality impacts) frcrn point and
nonpoint sources. Comparison of loading data offers information for under-
standing the relative amounts of pollutants generated by point and nonpoint
sources. Of the 16 pollutants analyzed by RFF, 11 are discharged principally
by nonpoint sources and four are discharged principally by point sources.
Table 1.4 displays the relative national percentage of pollutant loadings
generated by point sources and by nonpoint sources for 13 of the pollutants
included in the RFF study.
Nonpoint sources contribute 95% of the average daily loading of sediment
(measured as TSS--total suspended solids) and 90% of the nitrogen loading.
Organic matter (measured as BOB--biological oxygen demand) and phosphorus are
also more likely to be contributed by nonpoint sources (roughly two-thirds are
from nonpoint sources). It is likely that the dominance of nonpoint sources
as sources of nutrients and oxygen-demanding materials is a result of point
source control measures implemented in recent years.[20] In addition, 800
loadings also reflect natural inputs such as debris from forests, leaf litter,
etc.

Figure 1.1 shows the State-by-State dominance of point or nonpoint sources for
three pollutants: phosphorus, lead, and copper. Although pollutant loadings
cannot be equated with water quality problems (i.e., the impact of the
pollutant load on the particular water body), these figures f-urTF-er support
the possibility that certain States may experience pollution problems that are
dcrninated by nonpoint sources. Climate, topography, soils, and the nature of
water bodies may all play a role in this tendency. In other States, it is
clear that a mixture of sources is the rule, and tradeoffs between point and
nonpoint sources to achieve water quality goals may be possible. The
possibility of such tradeoffs, however, can only be evaluated at the local
level.

TABLE 1.4 POINT AND NONPOINT SOURCE CONTRIBUTIONS OF SPECIFIC POLLUTANTS
(AVERAGE OF STATES' PERCENT CONTRIBUTIONS)*

% from Point % from Nonpoint
Pollutant Sources Sources

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 30 70

Total Phosphorus 34 66

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 10 90

Oil 30 70

Fecal Coliform 10 90

Lead 43 57

Copper 59 41

Cadmium 84 16
Chromium so so I

Z i'n c 30 70

Arsenic 95 5

Iron 5 95

Mercury. 98 2

*The data presented in this table represent the average of individual
States' percent contributions, based upon average daily loading data
for 50 States and the District of Col umbia.

Source: Prel iminary d ata developed by Resources for the Future under
contract with USGS, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, and EPA.

FIGURE 1.1 RELATIVE CONTRIBUTIONS OF POINT AND NONPOINT SOURCE LOADINGS
BY STATE

LEAD

...... ....

.................
. . . ...... .
..............
...............
. . . . . . .. . . . ..

..........
........... ....
.............

. . . . . .......
PHOSPHORUS
... .. ......

.. All

...............

COPPER

-e

Point source
contribution 70% or more

Nonpoint source
contribution 70% or Mort

Neither category
contributes 70 % or more

Source: Prellrinary data developed by Resources for the Future under contract with UsGS. National oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, and EPA.

1-15

HONPOINT SOURCES ARE DIFFICULT TO MANAGE

Despite improvements in our knowledge and understanding of nonpoint source
water quality problems, gaps still exist that complicate their management.
Sane aspects regarding %ne extent and magnitude of the problem remain to be
clarified. These gaps can frustrate I -. control of nonpoint sources.
Econcmic, legal , a nd institutional* pro@ ...?ns can further ccrnplicate our
ability to manage nonpoint source pollution.

The First Challenge: Defining a
Nonpoint source Proolm

As part of their water quality planning and management programs, States are
identifying and updating the identification of priority water bodies. After
this identification process is complete, the initial challenge faced by the
State water qualitymanager is to determine whether or not an identified water
quality problem is caused by nonpoint sources. The manager's ability to
define a nonpoint source problem is made more difficult by the following
factors:

e A certain portion of nonpoint source runoff is. due to
555TRF-a T-c o n a i t I o ns .Separating natural DaCKground co
tions from nonpoint source pollution generated by people is
an essential step toward determining future management
actions.

e It is difficult to segregate the impacts of point and non-
point sour-c-e-s-7-R-th sources may contribute to a use impair-
ment or a criteria violation. Separating the effects of
each source is a complex technical issue.

e Baseline information is lacking. State water quality
programs have been historically guided by point source
concerns. As a result, both the numerical criteria that
support water quality standards (and establish the levels of
a particular pollutant that support or. fail to support
designated uses) and water quality monitoring programs are
designed for the low-flow conditions under Which the impact
of point sources is of greatest concern. Use of numerical
water quality criteria may not be appropriate for the
management of nonpoint sources. However, alternative
baseline approaches are lacking and there is a general lack
of monitoring programs oriented toward nonpoint source
controls.

*For purposes of this report, "institutional" refers to the range of public
and private entities that constitute the framework through which nonpoint
source control programs are implemented.

1-16

Other Difficulties

Nonpoint sources are difficult to manage for various other reasons: physical
historical, and institutional. First, it is hard to establish cause-and-
effect relationships between many nonpoint sources and particular water
quality problems. Nonpoint sources are by nature diffuse and result from many
different land management activities within a watershed. In addition,
alterations to the landscape of a given watershed may change the manner and
the amount of water moving through it. Such hydrologic changes add to the
difficulties in pinpointing sources of nonpoint pollutants.
Second, some streams appear to have been dominated by nonpoint sources for
virtually as long as there are records available. The Missouri River, for
exampl e . has been cal 1 ed "The Big Muddy" throughout much of our nation' s
history. The carrying of eroded soil by streams is a natural phenomenon, and
in some cases a reduction of loads from nonpoint sources may result in
increases in naturally generated sediments. A related problem is the fact
that the sediment load within a stream absorbs some of that stream's energy.
The removal of sediment loads will release energy and some streams will seek a
new equilibrium by taking fresh sediment loads from the streambank. [21]
Third, sediments and other pollutants released years ago and stored in water
bodies may continue to act as sources of water contamination. In certain
water bodies, for example, a significant source of sediment may be the sedi-
ment deposited during previous storm 'events, which is now a part of the stream
bed. This sediment causes continuing water quality problems and complicates
the evaluation of the impact of current activities generating nonpoint source
pollutants.
Finally, management of nonpoint sources is complicated by the fact that
decisions on appropriate management controls must be made on a site-specific
and source-specific basis. Chapter 2 provides extensive di-scussion of the
nature of these control measures. The complex nature of pollutants generated
by nonpoint sources means that there is no single prescription that will
provide an answer as to what control actions are needed. Site-specific
decisions on control measures are made still more difficult by political
elements . To the degree that decisions on appropriate nonpoint source
controls affect the manner in which individuals manage their lands, 'these
decisions can be very controversial.

ECONOMIC BEKEFI`TS CAN BE ACHIEVED BY CONTROLLING
NONPOINT SOURCES OF POLLUTION
Significant economic benefits can result from effectively managing nonpoint
sources. These include onsite net benefits to the faryner such as reduced
tillage costs (e.g., from conservation tillage) or increased crop yields
(e.g., from controlling salinity on irrigated croplands). Offsite benefits of
managing nonpoint sources of pollution can be substantial as well and can be
categorized in the following manner: (1) protection of aquatic ecosystems,
(2) enhanced recreational opportunities, (3) protection of water storage and
navigation facilities, (4) protection of commercial fisheries, (5) reduced
flooding, and (6) reduced damage to water conveyance and treatment facilities.

1 '7

Several recent studies have estimated the offsite econanic benefits of
controlling nonpoint sources or the combination of point and nonpoint sources.-
The direct and indirect econanic benefits of maintaining current water quality
and reducing future (1988) eutrophication by controlling nonpoint source
pollution in Dillon Reservoir (located in Summit County, Colorado) are esti-
mated to be substantial .[22] Property values for seasonal residences adjacent
to St. Albans Bay on Lake Champlain in Vermont have been reduced due to the
degradation in water quality caused by both point and nonpoint sources.[23]
It is estimated that significant dredging and spoil disposal costs could be
saved in Michigan as a result of managing cropland erosion.[24]

Results are Possible

The fact that. nonpoint sources of pollution are difficult to manage does :-iot
mean that control is hopeless. Much has been learned from research in the
last decade. It is now known %4nich EMPs will work and which will be the most
cost effective under specific conditions. For example, while control of sane
nonpoint sources, such as urban runoff, can present technical challenges
evidence drawn from Federally sponsored demonstration projects indicates thai
many types of nonpoint sources of pollution can be controlled cost
effectively.

There are State and local programs controlling runoff from agricultural,
silvicultural, construction, and urban areas which are highly effective (see
Chapter 3 for a more complete discussion). EPA, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), and others are exploring new management concepts for
nonpoint sources of pollution wbich are proving to be very cost effective
(e.g., risk sharing, trading of pollution control requirements between point
and nonpoint sources, and conservation tillage). Substantial cost savings can
be obtained by managing nonpoint sources rather than requiring further point
source controls for achievement of water quality goals.

In summary, a great deal more is known today about controlling nonpoint source
pollution than was known a few years ago. While all problems are not yet
solved or even identified, initial steps can be taken by the States to
determine if the management of nonpoint sources are'Wdrranted.

NAPTER 1: NOTES

1. U.S. Census 1980.

2. Economic Report of the President, Transmitted to Congress, February 1983,
-P. -r6T--
3. Aquatic Life SurveZ, Briefing Document, U.S. EPA, Monitoring and Data
Support Division, June 1983.

4. National Accomplishments in Pollution Control: 1970-1980--Some Case
Histories, U.S. EPA.

5. Unpublished data from USGS.

6. North American Lake Management Society, 1983 State Lake Survey.
7. National Water Duality Inventory 1982 Report to Congress, Final Draft,
U.S. EPA, Monitoring and Data Support Division, December 1983.
8. Unpublished reports from U.S. EPA Regions, completed in Spring 1983
9. Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action, U.S. EPA, September 1983.
10. Alfred M. Duda, "Municipal Point Source and Agricultural Nonpoint Source
Contributions to Coastal Eutrophication," Water Resources Bulletin, Vol.
18, No. 3, June 1982, pp. 397-407.

11. Tennessee Valley Authority Environmental Assessment: Stream Renovation
Program, West Eight County Association of Soil Conservation Districts,.
State of Tennessee, September 1982.
12. Water Oualitx and Urban Stormwater: A Management Plan, North Carolina
Department of Natural Risources and community Development, Division of
Environmental Management.

13. Coal Mining and Water Ouality: The Effect of Coal Mining on Water
ty in the Tennessee Valley Region, September 1980.

14. Pennsylvania Section 305(b) Report.

15. Montana Section 305(b) Report.

16. Unpublished reports from U.S. EPA Regions.

17. Ibid.

18. Interview with Iowa State Official in Chicago, Illinois, October 1983.
19. Groundwater Protection, U.S. EPA, November 1980, p.3.
20. Preliminary data developed by Resources for the Future under contract
with USGS, National Oc.eanic and Atmospheric Administration, and U.S. EPA.

21. Dr. Edwin H. Clark, 11, and Jennifer A. Haverkamp, Off-Farm Impacts of
Soil Erosion., forthcoming publication from The Conservation Foundation. . 1
2 2. National Institute for Socioeconomic Research, Importance of Lake Dillon
Water Oualitj to the Economy of Summit County, C ado, Prepared for
Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, Boulder, Colorado, 1983.

23. C. Edwin Young I Perceived Water Ouality and the Value of Seasonal Homes,
Economic Research Service, USDA, 1993.

24. Alfred Birch, Lazmen Sundretto, and Lawrence W. Libby, Toward Measurement
of the Off-Site Benefits of Soil Conservation, Department of Agricultural
Economics, Michigan State University, E-as=ansing Report #431, 1983.

CHAPTER 2

Identification of High-Payoff Problem Areas
and Expected Results

SKILLFUL TARGETING LEADS
TO HIGH PATOFF

In the preceding chapter, we discussed in general terms what is known
nationally about the water quality problems caused by nonpoint sources, and
some of the difficulties in managing these sources. Chapter 2 describes how
taking a well aimed approach to those problems can lead to high payoff in
water quality improvements. We often use the term "targeting" in this discus-
sion to refer to two components: water quality and management. Targeting for
water quality involves identifying the priority water bodies for which the
adoption of a nonpoint source control strategy will yield significant water
quality benefits. Targeting for management means selecting those abatement
activities that will lead to the greatest improvements for the least cost.

Once a priority water body is determined to have a nonpo i nt- source- related
water quality problem, a most logical and effective way to address nonpoint
source problems is to devise strategies for control within the confines of the
surrounding watersheds. Then, within watersheds, particular land areas and
activities giving rise to nonpoint source pollution can be identified and
managed for control. Narrowing the focus yet again, decisionmakers must
analyze the feasibility of implementing nonpoint source control measures.
Abatement techniques must be selected that are the most suitable and effective
for locations targeted for action. The institutional framework through which
controls are to be implemented must be identified and, in some cases,
designed .

This chapter examines both the water-related component and the management
component of developing a targeted and *high-payoff" approach to managing
nonpoint sources of pollutants. Because all of the decisions in this area are
both site-specific and source-specific, much of..this chapter addresses the
differing nature and impacts of different nonpoint sources, and the kinds of
management practices utilized to achieve water quality improvements.

TARGETING: A NARROWER FOCUS YIELDS RESULTS

The problem of pollution generated by nonpoint sources, when viewed from a
nationwide perspective, can appear overwhelming. The sheer size of the land
area involved, the vast number of activities that are and may contribute to
nonpoint source pollution, and the institutional considerations that come into
play in managing sources and solutions can lead to the feeling that the
nonpoint source pollution problem is too big to address. However, as was
pointed out in Chapter 1, such is. not the case. The tools and knowledge for
managing nonpoint source problems do exist.

What is required is a narrowing of focus on the problem. Recent research has
shown that, for many nonpoint source pollutants and affected water bodies, a

significant percentage of the poll-ition load and water quality problem comes
from a limited portion of the watershed. Targeting management efforts to
those land areas can clearly pay off. Water quality improvements can be
max-imized by implementing the most effective management practices on those key
land areas.

FOUR BASIC ELEMENTS CREATE EFFECTIVE TARGETING

I Pinint those Water Quality Problems in Priority
Witer Bodies thaF Are Causec by Nonpo-Tn-f7ources
The State water quality agency must first determine in which of its priority
water bodies are water quality problems caused by nonpoint sources. This
determination is the first step in targeting a State's strategy for nonpoint
source control. For a variety of reasons (discussed in Chapter 1), it can be
difficult to determine the extent to which nonpoint sources degrade water
quality. The task is not impossible, but nonpoi nt- source- related problems
must be identified carefully. Statistical and biological monitoring proce-
dures are under development for evaluating nonpoint source impacts on water
quality.

2. Rank Priority Water Bodies for-Concentrated Attention
To maximize the effectiveness of limited funds, it will probably be necessary
for States to further narrow their focus on nonpoint source management in this
second step. Two important considerations will be addressed at this point:
the source of pollution (i.e., nonpoint, point, or natural background sources
of pollution) and the need to prevent degradation of those water bodies that
are now clean, but upon which planned land management activities will have an
effect.. One important question is whether the water body has the potential
for improvement if nonpoint sources are controlled, or whether other sources
will preclude such improvement. Another important question concerns whether
new activities in a watershed will lead to deterioration of water quality if
not managed properly.

States use a variety of approaches to establish priorities among 'problem
water bodies. In general, the approaches chosen reflect a State's view not
only of critical water values and public trust concerns, but also of how
practicable available solutions may be in addressing the nonpoint soucce
problem. For example', the State of Illinois establishes priorities for the
control of nonpoint sources by assessing where the affected water resource is
being used and wbere there is a public trust concern. The highest priorities
for nonpoint source management are lakes that provide water supplies and
recreational opportuniti-'. Wiscons`-.'s water quality priorities are oriented
toward the protection o@e cold-water -sheries and lakes used for recreation.
Its extensive nonpoint .*)ource water pollution abatement program identifies
priority projects on a -atershed basis--the natural hydrologic area within
which nonpoint source pr, lems occur--and then identifies priority management
areas within the watershed- -areas within the watershed containing the most
significant sources.

3. Identify the Key Nonpoint Sources and Activities

A variety of land-use activities may be ta@.@-,ng place within a given watershed.
Any one of these may contribute to a water quality problem. A key step in
targeting appropriate nonpoint source controls is the identification of the
critical land-use activities that are the source of the water quality problem.

4. Choose Best Management Practices
Either explicitly or implicitly, virtually every State with a nonpoint source
control program further targets its efforts by emphasizing the implementation
of the most cost-effective "best management practices" (BMPs) available to
control a specific source. BMPs are those methods, measures, or practices
designed to prevent or reduce pollution. They include, but are not limited
to, structural and nonstructural controls and operation and maintenance proce-
dures. They are often used in varying combinations to prevent or control
pollution from a given nonpoint source. One example of a SMP for pollutants
generated by agricultural practices might be manage(hent of fertilizer appli-
cation to ensure that no more fertilizer is applied than is absolutely
necessary.

in practice, the targeting of reasonably available BMPs sometimes affects the
selection of priority water bodies. For example, although water quality
problems caused by acid drainage from abandoned mines present some of the most
severe problems in a number of States, high cost and feasibility of technology
have limited the EMPs for their control. Thus, these problems often do not
receive high priority: energy and money are being directed toward problems
that have more straightforward solutions.

THE SELECTION OF BEST MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES INVOLVES KEY CHOICES
The basic approach taken by the Clean Water Act for managing point sources--
that is, the application of uniform technological controls to classes of
dischargers--is not appropriate for the management of nonpoint sources.
Flexible, site-specific, and source-specific decision-making is the key to
effective control of nonpoint sources.
Any given category of nonpoint sources of poll ution--agriculture, silvicul-
ture. construction, etc.--is composed of a variety of sources. Many different
activities are associated with each type of nonpoint source. In the agricul-
tural category, for example, animal waste pollution can ccme from small,
confined animal feeding areas; barnyards; application of animal waste to
fields as fertilizer; or animal grazing activities. The first "site-specific"
question to ask is : "What are the major nonpoint sources affecting the water
body?" For any source within a particular category, a variety of BMPs may be
available. The selection of the appropriate BMP or system of EMPs for any one
site will depend upon a variety of factors, including:

e Environmental Cons iderati ons--Cl imate , nature of the water
body, nature of Uffe-la-q-Mier and surrounding strata (if
ground water is involved);

2-3

0 Land Considerations--Soils, slopes, permeability of soils,
depth to ground water;

e Effectiveness--The portion of the pollutants of concern that
can be exW-Eted to be effectively managed by the selected
practice;

* Economic Cons iderat i ons--Cost of the eMP, short-term and
long-term benefits and costs to the landowner, size and
nature of the land ho.lding (and associated benefits and cost
considerations), and cost effectiveness with respect to
achieving water quality goals. (In this discussion, cost
effectiveness means the consideration of alternative
approaches and selection of least-cost approach to
control or mitigate nonpoint pollution.); and
Implementation Considerations--Acceptability of the
practice, need for traini-ng and education, need for
incentives, etc.

Effective nonpoint source control programs select EMPs that are designed to
meet specific watershed and site-specific needs, rather than applying a single
BMP to all "similar" nonpoint sources.

TIMING AFFECTS IMPLEMENTATION OF BMPS

The implementation of Ws takes time. The amount of t ime needed-to implement
control strategies depends upon the nature-767-The BMP. Even the simplest
BMPs---such as changing crop rotations to reduce sediment loads--require
reaching individuals with education and training. Some BMPs may require the
phasing out of old equipment and the purchase of new. The speed with which
this takes place depends upon a number of economic considerations.
Other timing issues include the 'amount of time needed for adoption of regula-
tory and/or cost-sharing programs. In urban areas,,for example, it may be
necessary to develop and adopt construction erosion and stormwater management
ordinances, a process that may be quite time consuming.

TARGETING STRATEGIES: A SUMMARY

Targeting as a means of achieving relatively high-payoff returns on nonpoint
source control efforts relies upon highly flexible approaches at the State and
local levels. It requires both the willingness and the capability:

* To identify specific areas where -nonpoint sources are
clearly the cause of water quality problems, either alone or
in combination with point sources;

9 To establish clear priorities for water bodies and stream
segments with demonstrated water quality problems; and

9 To identify site-specific BMPs or systems of EMPs that will
provide the most pollution abatement at the least cost and
have the greatest likelihood of being implemented.
Such an, approach makes it possible to focus resources upon the worst and/or
most solvable problems first. Of course, targeting is also likely to
highlight certain unwelcane realities: for example, the conclusion that sane
severe water quality problems caused by nonpoint sources currently have no
atceptable BMPs that can reasonably be implemented at the State or local
I evel s .A number of States do not target water quality problems due to acid
mine drainage because of the lack of practicably available solutions to these
problems.
Although general identification of nonpoint sources and associated problems
can be accomplished at a national level, the targeting of critical areas and
practices must be based upon more detailed analysis and evaluation done at the
Regional and State levels. Those specific water bodies that have been brought
to public attention for nonpoint source control (e.g., the Chesapeake Bay and
Lake Erie) achieved this status only after extensive field study and regional
identification as a high priority water body.

INTRODUCTION TO THE NONPOINT SOURCE CATEGORIES

The discussions that follow address five nonpoint source categories:

e Agriculture

* Si I v ic ul ture

* Mining

9 Construction, and

e Urban Runoff.

The kinds of problems caused by each activity are described, as are some of
the considerations involved in selecting BMPs for their control. Although it
is clear that the targeting of land areas and priority water bodies for
control of pollutants mobilized via nonpoint sources must take place at a very
localized level, policyrnakers must have a good grasp of the source-specific
concepts related to such targeting.

2-5

AGRICULTURAL NONPOINT SOURCES

NATURE OF THE PROBLEM

Agriculture: The Most Pervasive Cause of
Nonpoint Source water Quality Problems

As is the case with most types of nonpoint source pollution, the nature and
extent of the agricultural nonpoint source problem is directly related to the
way in which the land is used...The agricultural sector generally manages land
resources very intensively. Row cropping, for example, usually involves not
only a good deal of land disruption, but also the application of chemicals
such as fertilizers and pesticides. About 63% of the non-Federal land in the
United States is used for agricultural purposes, including crop and livestock
production.[1] It is not surprising, therefore, that agricultural activities
constitute the most pervasive cause of water quality problems from nonpoint
sources. Indeed, it is considered the most serious cause in most of the EPA
Regions.r2l National studies suggest that agricultural nonpoint source
pollution adversely affects portions of over two-thirds of the nation's river
basins.r3l

Nonpoint source pollution from agriculture actually has several different
sources with different associated impacts. These sources are:

* Nonirrigated croplands, both row (e.g., corn and soybeans)
and field (e.g., wheat),

e Irrigated croplands,

9 Animal production on rangeland and pastureland, and

i Livestock facilities.

This range of sources indicates that the agricultural nonpoint source problem
is not only pervasive, but also multifaceted. The primary pollutants from
nonirrigated cropland are sediment, nutrients, and pesticides. While irri-
gated fanning is a source of these pollutants, too, it is also the. major
agricultural source of polluting salts and other minerals. Runoff from barn-
yards and feedlots primarily contributes nutrients, organic matter, ammonia,
fecal. bacteria, and other microorganisms to receiving water bodies. Over-
grazing of rangelands and pasturelands often contributes sediment and nutrient
pollution through runoff. The related surface disruption and reduction in
natural cover increases the erodibility of these lands. Livestock grazing
freely along streambanks compact and damage them, thus increasing erosion and
sedimentation problems. Livestock wastes also contribute to stream pollution.

Sediment from Cropland is a Major Potential Cause of Water Pollution

The most obvious cause of surface water contamination from cropland is
sediment, which is carried off eroding lands via rainfall, snowmelt, or heavy
wind. Research suggests that 25 to 40% of the soil that runs off a field

2-6

reaches a water body.r4l Because of this disparity between gross erosion and-
sediment delivery. calculated erosion rates may not be directly correlated
with water quality problems. A look at erosion rates, however, gives a rela-
tive indication of the parts of the country most likely to have sediment
problems.

The National Resource Inventories conducted by USDA in 1977 (to be updated in
1984) indicated that most of the 413 million cropland acres are eroding at an
annual rate of 5 tons per acre or less. However, about 68 million acres are
losing 5 to 14 tons per acre per year, and 26 million acres have erosion rates
exceeding 14 tons.r.51 As a result, it has been estimated that 10% of the
nation's cropland is responsible for 54% of all U.S. soil loss due to sheet
and rill erosion.r6] Figure 2.1 provides, for each of the nation's crop
production regions, the percentage of cropland eroding at levels exceedii@- 5
tons per acre per year. The actual potential for sediment delivery depends
upon a site's soil characteristics, slope, climate. and proximity to surface
waters. The pollution generated is also directly related to crop type,
tillage practice, and 'other factors tied to management techniques. For
instance, wheat cultivation generally produces less erosion than row cropping.

FIGURE 2.1 PERCENTAGE OF CROPLAND ON WHICH
THE RATE OF SHEET AND RILL EROSION
EXCEEDS THE SOIL LOSS TOLERANCE LEVEL (1977)
a 0691
Lake States
Pacific Northeast A
Northern .0 cy So
Plains Corn soft
42.3
Mountain
Appalachian
47-5

Delta theast
Southern States 48.1
Plains 9.
25.0

Sources: Sandra S. Batie and Robert G. Healy, editors, The Future of American
Agriculture as a Strategic Resource, The Conservation Foundation,
1980, P. 90.

Unpublished data from EPA, Water Planning Division.

The potential voter quality impacts caused by sediment are numerous. Sed imen-
tation directly affects aquatic. habitat and spawning areas and indirectly
-affects temperature and turbidity. In addition, chemicals attached to the
sediment--such as pesti.cides and nutrients--cause other water quality
problems.

Additional Problems are Caused by Nutrients, Pesticides, and Salts

Many nutrients ultimately delivered to surface and ground water result from
the excessive application of fertilizers or manure to cropland. These addi-
tives contain nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. Nitrogen and phosphorus
are the major contributors to the accelerated eutrophication of water bodies,
and the former may cause high nitrate levels in ground water. Cropland,
pastureland, and rangeland contribute over 6.8 million tons of nitrogen and
2.6 million tons of phosphorus to U.S. surface waters each year, accounting
for 68% of the total loads of these pollutants.r7l The Corn Belt (Tllinois ,
Indiana, love, Missouri, and Ohio) uses 39% of the nation's phosphorus
fertilizer and 32% of its nitrogen fertilizer.r8i

Pesticides are usually present in streams, rivers, and lakes at quite low
concentrations. nelivery of pesticides to water bodies varies, depending on
crop adsorption rates, the propensity of the chemical toward water or
sediment-attached transport, rainfall, slope, soil type, and the proximity of
the land to a waterway. Over time, pesticide delivery averages only about 5%
of total pesticides applied; however, when more than an inch of rainfall
occurs within one week of pesticide application, delivery rates increase
substantially and may result in fish kilis.r91
The characteristics of pesticides used in agricultural production have under-
gone cha-nges in recent years, tending to reduce environmental impacts. Also,
application requirements mandated by EPA regulations are designed to minimize
problems. Newer pesticides are less persistent in the environment. and there-
fore have fewer long-term impacts, but these pesticides are also more likely
to be water soluble-rIO1 Thus, water (rather than sediment) is the vehicle by
which these chemicals enter water bodies. While sediment control measures
also control runoff water, concern'remains as to whether they provide adequate
protection. In addition, toxic water-soluble chemicals in pesticides may be
more biologically available when freely waterborne than they are when bound to
sediment. Thus, they may cause acute short-term surface water impacts and
eventually have serious effects on ground voter resources through percolation.
'Herbicides are the most commonly used pesticides. , In 1980, farmers used 445
million pounds of herbicides, and 306 million pounds of insecticides. Total
agricultural use of pesticides in 1980 is estimated at 846 million pounds--72%
of the total national consumptionrill, and this usage continues to increase.
Projections made in 1979 indicate that by 1985 annual use will reach 2.5
billion pounds.r121 Figure 2.2 provides an illustration of the growth in
American pesticide use.

While irrigated farming, too, is a source of sediment, nutrients, and pesti-
cides, it also causes special agricultural pollution problems. Salts and'
other minerals are carried to water courses by irrigation return flows and to
ground water resources by percolation through soil and rock layers. The Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) estimates that half of the 90 to 100 million tons
of salt delivered annually to streams is from agriculture. [13] This can ma@e
a significant contribution to salinity downstream, which affects aquatic
habitat and downstream water users at great cost.

Table 2.1 indicates those States for which control of specific agricultural
nonpoint source poll ut ants is a high priority.

FIGURE 2.2 UNITED STATES PESTICIDE USAGE:
TOTAL AND ESTIMATED AGRICULTURAL SECTOR SHARE (1964-1980)

12M -

1000-

2 goo.
.j
.j

no
U 67 0 0 71 72 73 74 75 76 7718 79
2 uA 0 A96culture
Source: Nonpoint Source Runoff: Information Transfer System, EPA, Office
of Water, JulY 1983, p.2.7.

Rangeland and Pastureland Contribute to the Problem

Rangeland and pastureland, although usually not used as intensively as crop-
land, can -,_,f:@tribute significant amounts of sediment and nutrients to water
bodies, esK_zzially where overgrazing is taking place. Sheet and rill erosion
is known to exceed 3 tons per acre per year in some rangeland in western and
southern States. Wind erosion in New Mexico and Texas exceeds 2 tons per acre
per year.r141 Shallow soils (themselves often the result of erosion) and
insufficient plant cover are among the factors that contribute most frequently
to erosion. Erosion rates are thus closely correlated to the condition of the

2-9

TABLE 2.1 PRIORITY AGRICULTURAL POLLUTION PROBLEMS BY STATE

I roe ie@/ 21411 feedlots/ are$ teal Seell reddletsi
S414111ty seateleatt Sedim"tattem Fertilinrt flastiCidet hilesal Waste Salinity INtrUsts Sedimentation Fertilizers ftsticidet Weal waste
AL

At ky 0

a lij 0

les

XT 0 0 0 1 19

Blank spaces do not necessarily indicate the absence of a particular problem In a State: instead, they may
reflect information in the two documents used as the basis for this table, and the priority problems
identified in therz. High priority problems are denoted by * a

Sources:

1. Implementation Status of State 208 Agricultural Programs. Draft, EPA, Water Planning Division, September 1980,
Ap,enoil A.

2. RCA Potential Problem Area 11 Water Quality: Problem Statement and Objective Determination. USDA. July 1979,
p
-r-
p. 5-6T.-

3. Unpublished information from EPA Regional personnel.

2-10

1 ands Management practices that maintain or improve the condition of range-
and pastureland can therefore significantly reduce the erodibility of these
lands

The rates of sheet and rill erosion are slightly lower on pastureland than on
rangelands. Rangeland and pastureland erosion is a problem in many Midwest
and mid-Atlantic States and in Arkansas, Colorado, and New Mexico.[15] In
addition, animal production an rangeland and pastureland results in runoff of
animal wastes, which can seriously deplete dissolved oxygen in streams and
lakes.

Livestock on Anerican farms and ranches produce roughly 1.8 billion metric
tons of wet manure each year. These solids contain about 7 mil,lion metric
tons of nitrogen, 1.7 million metric tons of phosphorus, and 318 million
metric tons of potassium.[16] This is a widely dispersed problem nationally,
with sources scattered throughout agricultural areas. Runoff from more
contained livestock areas (e.g., from feedlots and barnyards) contributes a
great amount of nutrierts, organic matter, ammonia,-fecal bacteria, and other
microorganisms that poll* _.t-e receiving water bodies. The National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination @jstem (NPDES) permit program regulates only the
concentrated feedlots 'which are large operations; it is the small operations
that are of concern for nonpoint source management. In addition, NPDES
permits regulate only the actual animal feedlot, not the disposal or land
application of animal waste. Thus, the disposal of animal waste from all
feedlots is of concern to nonpoint source managers.
Table 2.2 summarizes in general terms the distribution of agricultural
nonpoint problems across the nation.

TABLE 2-.2 GENERAL DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL NONPOINT SOURCE PROBLEMS

Agricultural Activity Location of Problem Areas

Cropland Widespread, but ' worst problems are in Delta
States, Southeast, Corn Belt, and in Appalachia.

Rangeland Problems occur in the western half of the U.S.
Wind -erosion mostly in New Mexico,and Texas.
Pastureland Sheet and rill erosion is worst in the Midwest
and mid-Atlantic States.
Irrigated Cropland A problem primarily in the West. The effects of
recer-. increases in irrigation in the Southeast
have -3t been docume--ed. Sediment from
i r r i'@.- -ed croplands i s a problem in the
Northwest.

Livestock Facilities Widespread across U.S., highest concentration in
the Midwest.

Socioeconomic Forces Affect the Agricultural
Nonpoint Source Problein

Agricultural activities are changing in ways that are important to the
management of nonpoint source problems. Economic trends have resulted in:

9 Conversion of pastureland, rangeland, and forest land to
cropland, which generates more profit, and

0 Shifts from field to row cropping (e.g., from wheat to
corn).

American farmers farmed 57 million more acres in 1980 than they did a decade
earlier, an increase of nearly 20%.[17] In the Northern Plains States, the
proportion of row crop acreage between 1974 and 1980 increased from 23% to
32%.[18]

Both of these trends are leading to increased total soil erosion and a growing
amount of sediment and other pollutants. 'A recent study of increasing crop
acreage in Georgia found that, compared to erosion rates on the pasture and
rangelands prior to conversion, crop production increased the sediment yield
by between 19 and 35 times.rigi nramatic increases in phosphorus, nitrogen,
and pesticides in runoff were also reported. Research has also shown that row
cropping produces significantly more sediment than non-row cropping because
row crops provide less natural cover to shield the soil from erosion-causing
rainfall.

Another important trend is the consolidation of small farms into much larger
ones, often absentee-owned and/or corporate-held. Recent research on the
adoption of conservation tillage practices in an Iowa watershed found that the
probability of adoption was inversely related to the size of the farm opera-
tion.F2nl This suggests that the trend in increasing farm size will present
difficulties for voluntary programs promoting the adoption of conservation
tillage. The same study also found, however, that increases in energy prices
have the effect of increasing conservation tillage adoption rates, even with-
out encouragement from nonpoint source pollution policies.[21]

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR AGRICULTURE

The diversity of agricultural activities that result in nonpoint source pollu-
tion requires a variety of control techniques. Table A.1 in Appendix A
provides an example of some agricultural BMPs, their costs, and their effec-
tiveness. Some of these may provide immediate benefits to the farmers who
adopt them, as- well as to the downstream water users and society at large.
For example, careful attention to the frequency and timing of fertilizer and
pesticide use may act to reduce both the amount of these chemicals entering
water bodies and the costs to farmers in terms of the amount of chemicals
purchased. Management of quantity and timing of irrigation water can cut down
both the runoff of salts and the costs to farmers of irrigation water.[221 As
another example, in the mid-South some farmers are moving toward double
cropping of winter wheat and no-till- soybeans. This BMP provides almost
continuous soil cover and an additional crop for the farner.[231

Other control techniques may yield a benefit to the farmer, but short-term
costs, in some instances, may interfere with the farmer's ability to adopt
these practices. Conservation tillage practices are a series of practices@
that retain crop residues on the land to reduce runoff of sediment. These
practices are considered to be very effective and of direct benefit to
farmers, but may require specialized equipment and additional costs.

Finally, a number of agriculturally related water quality problems can only be
addressed by BMPs beyond the economic self-interest or means of the farmer.
For example, reduction of saw severe erosion problems may require terracing--
a costly technique that breaks up a long slope into a series of shorter ones
and reduces erosion by interrupting downhill water flow. Control of animal
waste problems may require the fencing of streambanks to keep out animals.

SUMMARY: REDUCTION OF AGRICULTURAL
NONPOINT SOURCE PROBLEMS IS ACHIEVABLE

Although agriculture presents the most pervasive nonpoint source pollution
problems, the BMPs available for addressing agricultural nonpoint sources are
generally well known. In addition, many--but not all--of the problems in this
nonpoint source category can be ameliorated by adoption of BMPs within the
economic self-interest of the landowner or farmer. In fact, management
practices designed to stop erosion--and the movement of soil and associated
pollutants frcxn the land--may increase the long-term productivity of the land.

Substantial achievements in water quality can be made by targeting resources,
education, and training programs to the land areas and activities that are the
source of agriculturally generated pollution problems. Effective delivery
system's for many of these programs are already in place as a result of the
excellent outreach agencies developed by the USDA. The Experimental Rural
Clean Water Program, for example, has demonstrated the. effectiveness of
targeting and training in a number of watersheds throughout the country (see
Chapter 3). Barriers to widespread adoption of agricultural BMPs, in general
are not technical. These barriers include: educational ones (farmers lac;
knowledge about BMPs); economic ones (adoption of certain BMPs is beyond the
fanner's economic interest); and programmatic ones (programs that specifically
address nonpoint sources and that provide technical and financial assistance
and/or an appropriate regulatory framework*are often lacking at the State and
local levels) .

SILVICULTURAL NONPOINT SOURCES

MATURE OF THE PROBLEM

The smaller areal extent of forest management activities, less intensive site
preparation, infrequent harvest, and lower frequency of pesticide and nutrient
applications in a given year all result in silviculture generating a smaller
volune of total nonpoint source pollutants than agriculture nationwide.[24]
However, 38 States addressed forestry impacts in their water quality manage-
ment plans, and silvic-ultural management activities can generate major local-
ized nonpoint source pollution problems.
One factor in understanding the nature of the silvicultural nonpoint problem
is the frequency with which land disturbance takes place and the nature of
that disturbance. The time intervals at which forests are cut is an important
factor in the potential for nonpoint source pollution. Rotation periods vary
from 20 to more than 100 years for different species of trees. Thus, harvest
sites in the pulp and paper producing areas with shorter (20-year) cutting
cycles have more frequent opportunities for contributing nonpoint source
pollution.
Silvicultural activities are actually comprised of a number of different
operations, each of which has a different potential for nonpoint source
pollution. These activities include road building, pesticide and herbicide
application, harvesting and logging operations, removal of trees from the
harvesting site, and preparation of the site for revegetation. Poorly planned
road building and poorly managed site preparation activities offer the
greatest potential for pollution impacts. The likelihood of such impacts is
dependent upon such factors as road design, extent of soil disturbance, and
time required until cover is reestablished (generally 2 to 5 years, and, in
certain terrains substantially longer).
A mature forest may experience extremely low soil erosion rates wten undis-
turbed by the activities of people (0.5 tons per acre per year or less).
While average erosion rates from carefully managed logging activities may be
fairly low (less than an additional ton per acre) erosion rates from 10 to 15
tons per acre per year are not uncommon. Losses due to intensive site prepa-
ration (preparing soil for replanting) can exceed 100 tons per acre per year.
[25, 26]
Nonpoint source impacts an water quality from silviculture depend on the
characteristics of the forest land (e.g., soil type and slope), on climatic
conditions, and on the type of forest practices and the care with which they
-are undertaken. As is the case with agriculture, sediment is the major
pollutant by volume and, as was discussed more fully under "Agricultural
Nonpoint Sources " the soil type, slope, and climate markedly alter the rates
of erosion and sediment delivery to vater courses. Although fertilizers and
pesticides have been increasingly used in silviculture, they are typically
applied only once or twice during a 20- to 35-year period, as compared to.
annual agricultural appl ications. (27)

In' addition, there is evidence that forest chemical application results in -
little water degradation because chemicals are sprayed relatively infrequently
in comparison to agricultural applications, and delivery rates to water bodies
are low.(28] In years for which data are available, less than 1% of forest
lands received chemical treatment nationally.[29] However, there is still
concern about water quality where chemicals are aerially sprayed near the
water course. In heavily drained watersheds, avoidance of water courses may
be particularly difficult.[30] Thus, while the contribution of chemicals to
lakes and streams is less frequently a problem for silviculture than agricul-
ture, serious pollution problems can result at the local level in certain
instances.

Other water quality oroblems associated with forestry practices include slash
or debris from for--;t operations that contribute organic matter to water
bodies and water temperature alterations resulting from removal of the
vegetation that shades water bodies.

The significance of nonpoint source pollution from silviculture goes beyond
the total pollutant load contributed by this source. Forested watersheds
often have the nation's highest quality waters. These areas are the source of
many municipal. water supplies and are prized for cold-water fisheries, aesthe-
tics, and other values.(31] Thus, maintenance and enhancement of these waters
is a major goal.

When not prope: j planned, constructed, and maintained, roads, drainage
ditches, and road cuts expose soil to erosion for long periods of time.
Evidence suggests that as much as 60% of sediment generation comes from
roads. (32 ] Improper road location and construction on less stable slopes can
also cause landslides with accompanying erosion and sediment delivery.[331
Heavy equipment crossing streams without benefit of culverts or bridges can
cause a loss of stream channel integrity and, in certain instances, increase
stream erosion.[34]

As with agriculture, there are regiona variations in the types of nonpoint
source water quality problems caused by silviculture. In the Northwest, sane
of silviculture's effects on water quality can be severe. Characteristics
like steep slopes, unstable and immature soils, and high rainfall can lead to
significant silviculture-related problems.[35] The-Northeast is characterized
by the production of hardwood timber usually managed on an uneven-aged silvi-
cultural system designed to regenerate the more valuable tree species. The
terrain is relatively gentle, but new road construction will affect water
quality unless precautions are taken. Disturbance from site preparation is
.the major issue in the Sout@ -ast, where softwoods harvested for pulp and paper
are grown with shorter rotations.[36] The fewest problems are experienced in
the Great Lakes States, where flat terrain and rapid revegetation assist in
reducing the effects of site disturbanceJ 37 ] -1
Sane general trends are also discerniole between Regions. In the Northwest,
the level of pollutior. from timber opey@-,ions may not increase as much as in
other areas because of depletion of 'old growth" timber inventories and
reliance on existing access roads to harvest second and third growth stands.
Expanded activity is expected in the Southeast.(38] As silvicultural activi-
ties intensify, there will be greater use of nonindustrial land, and more land
is likely to be put into intensive production. Figure 2.3 shows the amount of

2-15

FIGURE 2.3 DISTRIBUTION OF COMMERCIAL FOREST LAND BY REGION

(JANUARY 1. 1977)

(in million acres) Now Eng;lam
31.0 V
NJ ft w
Pacific Northern Lake
Northwest Rockies 41
47. Mid-Atlan ic
53.3
33.5 4&4
IN VA

Central V,
acific Southern South.Atl4mtic
Southwest Rockies 41 12 47.7
17.3 11C
24.3 C ritral
NJ Gulf
Wes:Gulf I
.5Q7 East Gulf
LA as AL 40.1
49

Source: An Analysis of the Timber Situation in the United States 1952-2030, Forest
service, USDA, December 1982, pp. 344-3T97

FIGURE 2.4 OWNERSHIP OF C"ERCIAL FOREST LAND BY REGION (JANUARY 1, 1977)

New England

Mid-Atlantic

Lake

Central

South Atlantic

East Gulf
$so% ro '_@@Cjd
Central Gulf

West Gulf

.......................
. ......... .......
Pacific Northwest

Pacific Southwest
........................

Northern Rockies

Southern Rockies .......................................
% 0 10 20 30 4@ 50 60 70 80 go 10@

sm Forest Fariner and
Federal Im Other Public Industry 2 Other Private
Source: An Analysis of the Timber Situation in the United states 1952-2030,
Forest Service, USDA, December 1982, pp. 344-349.
1) 1 -1

com;mercial forest land in major timber ?rowing re@ions. Figure 2.4 shows the
percentages of ownership of commercia . forest and in each region of the
country.

The future demand for forest and timber products is subject to debate. Recent
estimates by the U.S. Forest Service predict an increase in demand of 32% by
2030.[39] Industry representatives are less optimistic and characterize
growth potential as more moderate than Forest Service estimates.[40]

SILVICULTURAL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

As is the case with other nonpoint sources, no one mitigation approach is
appropriate for controlling all the sediment and other pollutants associated
with silvicultural operations. knong the individual site characteristics that
determine the effectiveness of a particular practice or combination of prac-
tices are slope, aspect, hydrology, elevation, weather patterns for rain and
snow, and geological stability. Each site requires a combination of tech-
niques best tailored to its particular characteristic s.[41 The types of EMPs
that are likely to prove effective include:

e Better pre-harvest planning;

0 Better planned and constructed roads;
a Less soil-disturbing techniques for harvesting, storage, and
hauling procedures;

e Less intensive site preparation;

9 New logging techniques (balloon, high-lead, etc.);

* Revegetation and closing of roads after use; and

e Careful application of fertilizers and pesticides.(42]
Although the evidence is incomplete, less intensive site preparation may be
beneficial at certain locations. Practices such as chopping (using a bladed
roller), instead of shearing and windrowing, are not only less costly and less
disturbing, but possibly may increase timber yields through soil conservation.
Studies show that less intensive site preparation can actually decrease costs
up to $100 to $400 per acre and increase timber yields.[43]
Economies of scale may be problematic for small tracts. On smaller acreages,
it may be difficult to justify use of certain equipment that could reduce
nonpoint source impacts. Good information on the sizes, types, and regional
distribution of forest land holdings is limited, and would be useful in
identifying regionally appropriate OMPs and in estimating resource needs for
various types of program efforts. Table A.2 in Appendix A shows scime examples
of si 1 v ic ul tural BMPs .

9-17

It is estimated that there are over 4 million private owners of forest land.
As detailed in Figure 2.4, 58% of all commercial forest land is held by
private owners. Seventy-three percent of this is estimated to be in holdings
of 500 acres or less, with an average size of about 70 acres.[44]

SUMMARY: MMODS FOR ADDRESSING SILVICULTURAL
NONPOINT SOURCES ARE VELL UNDERSTOOD

Although silvicultural activities do not appear to cause nonpoint source
pollution problems as pervasive as those caused by agriculture, or as severe
as those related to mining, they can still lead to localized water quality
problems in places where they are not well managed. Water quality impacts
associated with excessive erosion can cause use impairment. The main nonpoint
source pollutants from silvicultural activities are sediment, chemicals (from
pesticides and herbicides), and organic debris. Principal sources are roads,
logging activities, preparation of sites for revegetation, and aerial spraying
of pesticides. Management practices to control these pollutants are well
known and well understood. Major implementation concerns are institutional in
nature.

As in agriculture, adoption of some BMPs will be both withi.n the means and
self-interest of the owner or operator. For example, proper construction of
logging roads intended for long-term use may lower operation and maintenance
costs. In many instances, however, adoption of BMPs will not be in the
economic self-interest of the operator. Needs for specialized equipment may
put s ane BMPs beyond the means of the small landowner or operator. Finally,
certain EMPs may be unattractive because they result in lost timber sales
(e.g., streambank management zones that leave a buffer strip in both sides of
the stream).

As we wi 11 see in Chapter 3, in cases where the self-interest of the landowner
or operator has not been enough to cause adoption of BMPs, many States have
effectively encouraged compliance with regulatory or quasi-regulatory pro-
grams . In other States, educational and training programs are used.

MINING NONPOINT SOURCES

NATURE OF THE PROBLEM

Mining cannot be viewed as a homogeneous source of nonpoint pollution. Many
different minerals are mined, each with its own set of nonpoint source
problems. Coal and metal mining are the sources discussed here, because both
are associated with serious water quality problems in large geographic
regions.

For the purposes of this discussion, nonpoint sources of pollution from mining
operations are considered to be those sources that are not designated as
"Point" sources. Mining nonpoint sources include discharge from inactive
mining operations, as well as runoff frcm inactive road networks and old
tailings and spoil piles. Although active minie sites may pose water quality
problems, these are considered to be point source problems and are regulated
under State and Federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPOES) permits. In addition, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
(SMCRA) of 1977 includes requirements for collection of runoff from active
coal mines and treatment of such runoff to meet point source discharge
requirements*.

The main nonpoint source problems at mining sites are:

9 Runoff of sediment from haul roads at both active and
inactive mine sites;

e Drainage of pollutants including acid, sediment, salts, and
metals fran inactive mines; and

e Drainage and leachate containing acid, metals, and sediment
from the spoil and tailings piles generated both by active
and inactive mines.

Sediments, Acids, and Heavy Metals Are the Pollutants
.57 concern from mining Nonpoint sources

Although mining is not as widespread as agriculture, the water quality effects
resulting from mining are normally much more harmful. Sedimentation rates
from mining can be extraordinarily high. Furthermore, whole streams may be
biologically dead as a result of acid mine drainage. Other pollutants with
potentially serious effect4 include heavy metals and radioactive materials.

*Active coal mining sites and associated haul roads may continue to cause
runoff-related water quality problems if, although required by law, all
runoff is not collected and treated due to delays or technical problems in
implementing SMCRA or NPOES requirements. These problems are not addressed
in this report because the regulatory mechanisms are those associated with
point source controls.

For mining, as for' agriculture and silviculture, erosion and delivery of the
resulting sediment to surface waters is a recurring problem. Because mining
operations expose large areas of soil and rock to the elements, the erosion
potential is great. Erosion and sedimentation are associated with almost
every abandoned surface coal mine.[45] Haul roads are a significant source of
sediment at both active and abandoned mining sites. In Kentucky, for example,
erosion from abandoned coal roads, which average 65 feet wide, has been
measured at between 2,000 and 4,000 tons per mile per year, depending on soil
type.[46] Spoil and tailings piles are also easily eroded and contribute to
sediment loadings. Most mineral extraction involves grinding the ore down to
200 to 300 mesh size; thus, mill tailings usually consist of fine dust in the
50 to 74 micron range that is easily eroded by water and wind processes and
transported directly or indirectly into water courses.[47]

Other pollutants associated with mining operations can have even more serious
water quality impacts than those associated with sediment. Acid drainage, for
example, is associated with runoff from surface coal mines and drainage from
deep coal mines[48] and a variety of noncoal mines, as well as runoff from
spoil and tailings piles. Acid drainage results when sulfide-containing
materials are disturbed and exposed to oxygen in the presence of water.[49]
Acid water can devastate stream populations. Highly acidic water inhibits
fish spawning, enhances the availability of toxic metals, and is an unsuitable
habitat for many of the organisms upon which fish and other aquatic species
depend .

Desirable metals such as gold, silver, copper, and vanadium are often found in
conjunction with unrecoverable quantities of heavy metals, such as lead,
arsenic, zinc, cadmiLin, mercury, and cobalt. When the desir-le metals are
separated from these heavy metals, the resulting waste piles i,e subject to
erosion and acid leaching with subsequent delivery of waste metals to surface
waters.

Mining activities can degrade ground water as well. Mine shafts and prospect-
ing wells driven into underground strata provide pathways for contamination of
.aquifers that were previously protected by impermeable layers of rock and
soil .[50 ] The destruction of geologic formations and the impact of precipi-
tation on mine shafts releases minerals into ground water from both the
bedrock and the mine shaft. Although mining has frequently been reported to
cause water quantity problems by lowering water tables, the extent of -ground
water pollutian @impacts from mining is unknown.

Table 2.3 shows the amount of land disturbed by surface mining activities in
1977. Although this. does not present a full picture of mining-related
activities,. it does give an indication of the distribution of surface mining
problems.

Nonpoint Source Impacts from Metal Mines
Occur in the West

Water quality problems ::@@sociated with mining are found in many parts of the
country. In the West, quality impacts from metal and uranium mining are
more serious than those ,rom other types of mining. Although a great deal of
coal mining is taking place, much of it began recently and is subject to NPOES

TABLE 2.3 ACRES OF LAND DISTURBED BY SURFACE MINING (JULY 1. 1977)"

Land Needina ftclaution Land loot Total Land
Need ing Disturbed
ReClamatio" not required by any low leclwation required by low peclantation

Sand and Other Pined Sand and Other Mined
State Coal Pines firavel Areas Coal mines gravel Areas
AL 72.292 1A.All 19.929 34.A117 S.498 6.2S2 IS.673 241,06Z
AK- 2.700 4.3AO A.finn 0 0 0 4,000 IS.000
A?" ann #;.4nfl fin,gnn 0 0 0 121.800 189,500
AR S.623 21.4013 11.474 LIM 20 1,592 9.449 S2,505
CA ?.*In An."A Soo 17.642 S1.316 Sq.n6l 217.497
CA01A.6* 2.5so I."no 0 0 0 710 4.260
Co 7,"AQ A,334 IS,461 1.195 11.67Z 6.513 14.023 64.687
CT** 16.70 747 0 0 0 4.S90 22,117
DES$ n 2,412 00 0 A 0 1.498 4.473
FL n Il,IA1 m.w 0 3,345 20.922 61.266 332.41S
CA I 6ptn 3,310 74.rons 764 4.621 13.772 23.247 71,447
N1 Iq Ils 0 0 0 0 130
-ID @,100 I.CAO 0 10.2" 3.S00 2,500 30.800
IL 11A.711 P11.33M 14,147 4n.499 4,S82 4,SS7 88,860 Z96.131
IN 7S.0112 II,A7S A,527 74.SAI 4.176 1.894 64.711 189,641
IA 13,997 In.147 6.421 341 A,457 9.638 10,519 59,520
KS 41.2sfi 11.1sm 10.159 *Is 3,634 3.978 20.117 91.109
Ky 10I.A37 9An 4.712 154.218 2.299 2.780 154.495 421.121
LA*v (1 37.324 2.S44 0 0 0 10,467 50.340
ft ?A.A33 2.07S 0 2.293 923 6.794 40.918
A.412 7,43M I.IRI 5.703 9.741 1,734 19.824 S2,025
KA" 32.041 10.33n 0 0 0 11.750 S4.121
"1 147 34,424 73,422 A 15.6fiz 4.077 27.6no 110.322
M 0 311.1147 44,A01 0 12.444 7.891 66,919 162.102
ft 4S.066 7,421 0 0 0 14.41S 64,202
70,6RIt 4.A73 ?A.IA7 A.772 1.046 6.05S 22,0SI 141.272
L I .91;s 4.0;ss IA.34n 4.766 4.492 6,SqA 12,528 53,334

*Based an information froN Soil Conservation Service State offices.
**NO state law W%en survey ccmoleted; therefore. no reclamation re4uired by low.

9-91

TABLE 2.3 ACRES OF LAND DISTURBED
BY SURFACE MINING (JULY 1,1977) (CONTINUED)

Land Needing ReClUkation Land Not Total Lord
Need Ing Disturbed
Reclamation act required by any I Reclamation required by low Reclamation

Send and other mined Sand and Mar Pined
Stott, Coal Himes Gravel areas Coal Mir." firovel Areas

17 f.9f. 46,029 0 11.006 31.003

1.721 I.SSS 0 1.9S3 S.729
12.72S 417 647 13.6119
pd.Aln S.S711 0 0 0 0.263 38.443
r2 it.w 1.1m 3,704 1.6S7 26.072 2.207 46.733
NY 0 30.417 19,2sl a 1S.979 S.037 18.477 $9,661
K - a I I ."m 4.792 0 ?."G 3."9 7.0m 34.706
No 1.0sm 2.010 "o 6.72S a 0 38.S9S 46,Sw
ON 196.704 22.A21 1A.473 77.0so 16.6%9 8,427 190.S7$ S30,147
OK 34,114 6,AS4 14.10S 6,248 4.110 16.?SS 26.311
OR 0 3.S21 17.SGA . 3 6.814 I.S38 7.327 36,431
PA 24n.00n 11'rm 2ft,".ft 60,00n 15.000 2S.0m ZSC.000 621.500

ltl** 0 2,497 a 0 0 0 3.470 6.062

SC 0 9.1m P.170 0 4.3" 3.194 9.815 28.S97
so son 10.153 4.mg 0 6,226 695 7.149 30.972
Tk 29.S83 4."o 2.106 3.127 210 1.13S 104,S96 146.5"
71 3.31n 142.o.? 37.184 3.72S fi.m 4."9 48.AS6 2S6.330
UT 63% 3."o 4,414 133 4.637 10.216 7.S21 31.SSS

YT 3.*?? 2.07A 6 377 fie I.S36 7.928
VA 23.724 3.788 1.251 0.222 3,924 2.003 70.060 112.977
WA Alp 9.701 A.174 1.1" 11.822 1.073 10.24S 42.2S3
WV 04.RfiA 4,;r,4 "S 7.6so a 0 137.105 23S.180
WT a 4I.Aft? 7.SSS 0 11."A 2.116S 21.60S &S.S16
WV 9.GS7 3,673 12.376 62.028 7.66S 12.797 S,Sl1 113.697
Total 1.#147.00 7".042 R30.407 S70.0" 2S7.8S1 267.097 1."8.203 S.719.776

**No state law whem survey iumpleted. therefore. m reclamiation required by law.
Source: Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act 194fl Water, and Related Resources in the United
States: status. conditions, Mrid Trends (RCA). US

permit requirements and reclamation requirements under SMCRA.[51] Abandoned
coal mine sites are also not a significant concern in the West. Noncoal
mining is the primary concern; it has been estimated that 80% of water pollu-
tion frcFn inactive noncoal mines occurs in four areas: Colorado, California,
Idaho/Montana, and Missouri.[52] The impact of nonpoint source pollution
caused by mining in the West is increased by the scarcity of surface and
ground water resources.

Noncoal mining activities that generate heavy metal contaminants are second
only to municipal treatment facilities as a source of toxics in water courses
within EPA's Region 8 (consisting of Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South
Dakota, Utah, and Wyaning). Several streams in Colorado have very high levels
of copper, zinc, and arsenic.[53] Contamination of water with heavy metals
and other hazardous pollutants is viewed as an emerging problem in the West,
due to the expansion of municipalities and the need for more water for
damestic use; continued development will inevitably bring more people into
contact with contaminated water in vhat "have heretofore been remote areas.[54]

Acid Drainage from Coal Mines Occurs in the East and Midwest
The mid-Atlantic and Appalachian regions are severely affected by drainage
from abandoned and inactive coal mines. EPA's Region 3 (consisting of
Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of
Columbia) reports that 49% of its strearns--more than 3,000 stream miles--
suffer severe water quality problems caused by acid mine drainage.[55] Two-
thirds of these problem streams are in western Pennsylvania [56], with the
remainder in West Virginia, parts of southwest Virginia, and western Maryland.
Underground coal mining is not as widespread in the Midwest (or interior
regions) as in the East. Abandoned coal mine lands are only a small percen-
tage of the total land area, and water pollution problems are generally not as
extensive in the Midwest as those in the East. Nonetheless, drainage from
coal mines does affect waterways in the Midwest, and is considered to be
'serious where it occurs.

NINING BEST KkMGEMENT PRACTICES

Despite the fact that nonpoint source impacts from inactive mines are well
understood, it is difficult to develop feasible control strategies because of
the high cost of control measures, limited success of control techniques, and
complexity of enforcement. [57 ] Techniques for control of mine runoff include:
@ Sealing of abandoned mines to minimize oxygen contact and
reduce acid formation, thus reducing contamination of
drainage;
e Revegetation of eroding surfaces (which itself is inexpen-
sive but often requires regrading of the mine site and
replacement of top soil);
* Mixing of fine and coarse materials to help stabilize mill
tailings;

e Addition of hypochlorite to gold tailings piles to render
their cyanide component harmless;

9 Alkaline treatment of uranium wastes to reduce their
solubility;
9 Compounding of highly hazardous material with asphalt or
concrete or capping with clay to provide permanent storage
and reduce leachate contamination;

e Removal of waste materials fron strearns and gulches that are
subject to washing, and placement of these wastes on higher,
impervious ground; and

* Containment of leached materials within ditches, dikes, and
impoundments where hydrologic conditions permit.

Although many of the management issues are similar, there are significant
differences in the technical and cost considerations associated with
installing BMPs on different kinds of mining sites. In all cases, the most
effective control of nonpoint source pollution frommining sites is prevention
by proper planning of the site as it begins operation.
Abandoned underground mines pose some of the most challenging control
problems. When mines were constructed below the water table and mine shafts
were used for access, they were often reinforced with brick or stone linings.
These shafts are resistant to natural closure by weathering and infilling, and
are difficult to seal.[58] In fact, BMPs calling for sealing of mines (to
prevent oxygen contact) and for alleviation of subsurface drainage problems
are not only expensive, but have met with little success; their technical
validity is currently considered questionable and plugs so emplaced often
leak. *The expert consensus i's that such techniques generally require long-
term (if not perpetual) maintenance, and that research and development efforts
would be useful in developin
,% effective technologies for abatement of pollu-
tion from underground mines. 9]

Abandoned surface coa; nines pose a different challenge. Sedimentation and
acid mine drainage result from road construction, removal of the overburden
(the rock overlying the coal), topography, and the mining activity itself.
BMPs involve a variety of land treatment techniques such as regrading and
revegetating spoil and refuse, in combination with neutralization to control
mine acid. Removal and burial or reprocessing of spoil and refuse banks can
also alleviate mine drainage, as can covering toxic "spoils" with impermeable
clay or capping them with synthetic material. A relatively recent innovation
is the use of anionic detergent to control the bacteria that aid in the
oxidation of pyrites.[60]
Reclamation practices for surface metal mining are diverse and must be chosen
on the basis of the environment in which the mining is ccne, the physical
nature of the mining operation (e.g., the use of quarries and large open pit
mines), and the climate.[61] The ability to reclaim the mine and return it to
its natural state may be severely limited. Most commonly, little overburden
accompanies minerals that are excavated from flat-lying deposits.(61]
Restoring the land to its original contour %here massive ore bodies have been

mined could require expenditures roughly equal to the costs of mining.[62]
Location of metal mining in the arid West further inhibits revegetation
possibilities.

SUMKARY: ABANDONED MINE PROBLEMS CONTINUE TO PRESENT
SERIOUS WATE]R QUALITY CONCERNS

Mining-related nonpoint source water quality problems are found in many parts
of the country. Because mining activities are typically concentrated in a
limited area, water quality impacts are also localized in nature. Where they
occur, however, the resulting impact can be quite serious.
Techniques for controlling pollution from operating mines are widely avail-
able. Proper site planning of a newmining operation is the key to preventing
pollution, and is required by 94CRA for all newmines. In many parts of the
country, however, it is the inactive and abandoned mines, the design and
operation of which were completed a number of years ago, that pose serious
water quality problems.
Techniques are available for solving many of the water quality problems
associated with surface mining. In sane instances, significant costs may be
associated with regrading land areas and adding topsoil for revegetation in
abandoned mines where improper planning for reclamation makes after-the-fact
problem solving difficult. Correction of drainage problems from deep mines is
both more technically difficult and more costly. In addition, correction of
these drainage problems may not last, and will usually require long-term
monitoring and maintenance.
Although techniques are available to address many abandoned surface mine
problems, institutional issues and costs continue to present barriers to
effective control. Mine owners are sometimes reluctant to cap or bury
tailings piles, and to take other steps that might make future recovery of
mineral values more difficult. Furthermore, ownership and responsibility for
abandoned mines is often difficult or impossible to establish.

CONSTRUCTION NONPOINT SOURCES

NATURE OF THE PROBLEM

On a national basis, the water quality degradation caused by nonpoint source
pollution from construction activities is not nearly as great as the amount
caused by other major nonpoint sources. Sediment is the main construction
site pollutant, but it represents only about 4 to 5% of nationwide sediment
loads in receiving waters.[63]

Where construction activities are intensive, however, the localized impacts an
water quality may be severe because of the high unit loads involved. Erosion
rates from construction sites typically are 10 to 20 times that of agricul-
tural lands, and runoff rates can be as high as 100 times that of agricultural
lands.[64) Thus, even a small amount of construction may have a significant
negative impact on water quality in localized areas.

Construction site erosion rates are highly variable because site characteris-
tics are many and varied. Climate, soil type, slope, and the type of con-
struction activity conducted are all involved. The characteristics associated
with severe erosion problems can occur locally anywhere in the country.

Construction sites also generate pollutants other than sediment, including:

9 Chemicals from fertilizer, such as phosphorus, nitrogen, and
other nutrients, that can be attached to sediment particles
or dissolved in solution;

e Pesticides, used to control weeds and insect pests at
-construction sites;

* Petroleum products and construction chemicals, such as
cleaning solvents, paints, asphalt, acids, and salts; and

9 Solid wastes, ranging from coffee cups to trees and other
debris left at construction sites.

Pesticides, petroleum products, and construction chemicals can be toxic to
aquatic organisms and seriously impair their fitness for human consumption.
These pollutants can also degrade the water itself, impairing its use for
.drinking and water-contact recreation.

Projections by the U.S. Census Bureau indic ate that population is growing most
rapidly in the South Atlantic, South Central, and Southwest areas. Typically,
these areas do not have State erosion control programs and, thus, construction
erosion problems might be anticipated. Figure 2.5 shows the regional distri-
bution of construction site sediment loss in the United States. In 1979, the
U.S. Soil Conservation Service reported that 60% of the nationwide construc-
tion site erosion occurs in ten States, as shown in Figure 2.6. These figure's
are likely to change if growth patterns shift.

2-26

FIGURE 2.5 REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF CONSTRUCTION SITE SEDIMENT LOSS

Regions Tons of Erosion Percentage
(in thousands) of Total

Northeast (1 4 States) 9,798
Southeast (12 States,Puerto 49t473
Rico, Virgin Islands)

Midwest (12 States) 13,679

West (12 States) 6t990

Total 79,940 1'0 io 3'0 4'0 5'0 6,0

Source: NonRoint Source Runoff: Information Transfer System, EPA, Office
of Water., July DW.

FIGURE 2.6 EROSION FROM CONSTRUCTION SITES

State. Tons of Erosion Percent of
(in thousands) National Total

Alabama 13,653 @z@": FERMUMME/n/70
North Carol ina* 6,674
Louisiana 5,071
Oklahoma 4,231
Georgia* 3,817
Texas 3,528
Tennessee 3,280
Pennsylvania* 3,126
Ohio* 39004
Kentucky 2,970
Total 4-9,354 2 4 6--- 8 10 1'2 114 16

*States; with erosion and sediment control laws in effect.
010

Wr
IF

Source: Nonpoint Source Runoff: Information Transfer System, EPA, Office
of water, July ITM.

It is estimated that a total of 1.6 million acres of land are disturbed
annually by construction activities, with highway and other heavy development
accounting for the vast majority of this acreage, and urban residential
housing (84,000 acres) and urban nonresidential development (79,000 acres)
representing the remainder.[65] flowever, fewer and fewer new highway miles
are being and will be constructed as highway reconstruction and maintenance
are now being ernphasized.[66] The latter activities still cause some nonpoint
source problems, but they are somewhat less severe than the problems caused by
new highway construction. The effectiveness of highway construction erosion
control is likely to reflect the availability of resources and varying levels
of sensitivity to the problem in different States.

BEST MANKGEKENT PRACTICES
FOR CONTROLLING CONSTRUCTION EROSION

Solutions to construction nonpoint source problems are well developed and
understood. The various control alternatives involve protecting disturbed
areas from rainfall and from flowing runoff water, dissipating the energy of
the runoff, trapping sediment that is being transported, and using good
housekeeping practices to prevent potential pollutants other than sediment
from being transported by runoff.[67] It is particularly prudent to control
this type of nonpoint source problem at the source- -prey ent i ng pollution at
each construction site--rather than trying to clean up receiving waters after
they have been damaged. Proper planning to control construction site erosion,
therefore, is crucial to the control process.
Each construction project should be planned with surface and ground water
drainage problems in mind, avoiding critical areas on and adjacent to the
site, and minimizing effects on natural drainage systems.[68] In addition,
site planning means scheduling construction activities at the proper time and
using phased construction stages that minimize the amount and duration of soil
exposure. Figure 2.7 compares the sediment loads from well planned and poorly
planned developments. This figure shows that, although a well planned
development results in a small increase in sedimentation, a development that
disregards proper planning can drastically increase sediment yields in runoff
water.

A combination of nonstructural and structural BMPs are typically used on con-
struction sites. Table A.4 in Appendix A lists examples of both nonstructural
and structural BMPs. As noted above, good advance site planning can go a long
way toward preventing construction erosion problems. Also, relatively inex-
pensive nonstructural vegetative controls (such as seeding and mulching) can
also achieve a great deal. In some cases, however, more expensive structural
BMPs may be necessary.
Examples of primary nonstructural BMPs include:
Soil stabilization practices, such as mulches, seeding, and
other ground covers--These can be very simple effective
methods for removing sediment from runoff and reducing the
amount of runoff. They work by dissipating the energy of
raindrops and absorbing moisture.

FIGURE 2.7 COMPARISON OF SEDIMENT YIELDS
FROM A WELL PLANNED AND A POORLY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

WILL PUNNED PRE- DEVELOPMENT
OfTfLOPNENT POST. DEVELOPMENT
(SITE 1)

POORLY PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT
(SITE 2

0 1.;00 2.000 4.000
SUSPINO10 SIIINENT TIELD

Source: Wi 11 i am G. Lynard, et. al ., Urban Stormwater Management and Technoloov--
Case Hi sto@i es, EPA, Off i ce of Research and Development, August 1980.

9 Good housekeeping pract i ces- -These include pror - use and
application of pesticides, fertilize,-s, petroleur products,
and chemicals. This OMP also inc :des proper solid and
human waste disposal practices on construction sites.
Wet and dry detention basins are examples of structural BMPs. Wet retention
basins have A constant pool of water in them and store runoff water even after
rainstorms. Wet retention basins are very effective at removing sediment and
other pollutants from runoff water and allowing water to percolate into the
ground. These wet basins are often used.for recreational activities such as
'boating. Conversely, dry detention basins remain dry between rainstorms and
may be used for dry land recreational purposes. During rainstorms they detain
runoff water for a short period of time and pollutants settle out. However,
dry detention basins have been found to be less effective than wet ones at
removing pollutants.
Other examples of structural measures include diversion structures (eg
dikes, ditches, level spreaders, and terraces) which route sediment-l;d;n.
runoff water into sediment basins or other safe disposal areas. Where runoff
velocities are slow, solids may settle out. Filter structures (e.g., stone
and gravel piles, sandbags, and straw bales) arp, other structural BMPs that
can be used to slow water velocities, thereby reducing further erosion.
Filter structures are sometimes considered low structural or nonstructural
controls when they do not entail much additional construction work. A
roadside swale or depression directs runoff water to appropriate places and
allows scme or all of the water to percolate into the ground.

2-29

Usually, a combination of structural and nonstructural controls produces the
most cost-effective answers to construction nonpoint source problems. For
example, highway construction nonpoint source pollution can be decreased
significantly by utilizing diversion and filter structures, mulches, and well
planned excavation work.[69] Total costs are estimated at more than $1,000
per acre[70], but these costs are more than recaptured by the reduced
expenditures for cleaning up sediment damage.

The costs for implementing construction site BMPs for private land development
activities are typically borne by the developer and are usually passed on to
the lard purchasers. However, should the control requirement not be uniformly
applied, a developer may have to absorb part or all of the costs of nonpoint
source controls and reduce profit margins in order to stay competitive. In
the case of highway or other public construction , any added costs to
government agencies are borne by the general public.

The benefits of EMP implementation are received by anyone using the waters
affected by construction erosion. In addition to improved water quality, some
benefits of sediment control include:

* Reduced frequency and intensity of floods;

* Lowered costs for purifying drinking water obtained from
surface water sources;

9 Preserved wildlife and other natural areas for aesthetic,
recreational. and commercial enjoyment, and increased
tourist income;

* Reduced water cleaning and channel dredging costs; and

Increased value of waterfront property resulting from a
number of the other benefits.

SUMMARY: NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION
FROM CONSTRUCTION CAN BE CONTROLLED

The major nonpoint source pollutant from construction sites is sediment.
Although pollutant loads are small nationally, the volume of runoff from a
particular construction activity--and its impact on a local water body--can be
significant. BMPs are well understood technically. They are also recognized
@o be beyond the economic interest of the builder. Practices are typically
instituted as a result of regulatory action on the part of the State and/or
local government, and costs are passed an to the consumer.

Because the various solutions to this nonpoint source problem are quite clear,
it is worth asking how BMPs can be implemented more effectively to achieve
f urther resul ts . In order to answer this, the failures in existing implemen-
tation programs need to be better understood so that appropriate steps can be
taken to reduce this source of nonpoint pollution. Although precise data are
not available, one of the apparent problems in many construction erosion con-
trol programs is the difficulty of inspecting and enforcing control measures
at nunerous sites scattered throughout a local jurisdiction. Weak inspection

2-30

and enforcement poin-, to the need for more emphasis on training and education
to complement regulatl,jry programs. Chapter 3 further describes the status of
State construction erosion control activities.

2-31

URBAN NONPOINT SOURCES

MATURE OF THE PROBLEP4

Rainwater running off roofs, lawns, streets, industrial sites, and other
pervious and impervious areas washes a number of important constituents into
urban lakes and streams. A large volune of the constituents in urban runoff
is canprised of sediment and debris from decaying pavements and buildings that
can clog sewers and waterways, reducing hydraulic capacity (and thus
increasing the chance of flooding) and degrading aquatic habitat. Heavy
metals and inorganic chemicals (including copper. lead, zinc, and cyanides)
arisi from transportation activities, building materials, and other sources
are Ao significant pollutants. Nutrients are added to urban runoff from
fertilizers applied around homes and in parks. Petroleum products from spills
and leaks, particularly from service station storage tanks, and fecal bacteria
from animal wastes and ineffective sept'ic tanks are other important contami-
nants and may affect ground vater as well as surface vater. In short, many of
the wastes from urban living make their way into urban runoff.[71]

Of equal importance is the volume of stormwater runoff leaving urban areas.
Figure 2.8 graphically illustrates the effects of paved surfaces on stormwater
runoff volumes. When natural ground cover is present over an entire site,
approximately 10% of the stormwater runs off the land into nearby creeks,
rivers, and lakes. When paved surfaces account for 10 to 20% of the area of
the site, 2D% of all stormwater becomes surface runoff. As the percentage of
paved surfaces increase, the volume and rate of runoff and the corresponding
pollutant loads also increase.

Heavy metals are also carried this way in urban runoff. As shown in Table
2.4, results from the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) indicate that
metals and inorganics are the urban runoff contaminants having the greatest
potential for long-term impacts on aquatic life, although they appear not to
cause the imediately observable acute impacts of pesticides (e.g., fish
kills). Sane of these pollutants accumulate in the tissues of fish and other
aquatic organisms. They also accumulate in the environment through continuing
sedimentation and/or are resuspended in the water column during high flows
associated with storm events.

These constituents may also have important effects on ground water, the extent
of which is dependent on site-specific hydrologic and geologic conditions that
determine the amount of runoff which percolates through to underground
aqui f ers . Aquifers in limestone areas are particularly vulnerable because
runoff flowing into sink holes and surface water is thus transmitted to ground
water rapidly.

It is reported both in the literature and by EPA Regions that urban runoff
causes significant local water quality effects. Several studies conducted as
part of NURP indicate that the quantity of urban stormwater and the high
velocity of its flow constitute a major cause of aquatic habitat disruption in
urban areas through erosion, sedimentation, and scour.[72] NURP was unable to
find extensive impairments or denials of approved water uses due to chemical
pollutants borne by urban runoff .[73] However, only limited biological

2-32

monitoring was Conducted by the NURP proj-cts, and concerns remain about the
long-term impact of metals and other priority pollutants discharged during
storm events and subsequently stored in bottom sediments.

FIGURE 2.8 EFFECT OF GROUND COVER ON URBAN RUNOFF

4 VA
IVAPO. 26%
TMISM111011 [VAPO-
TRANIVIRATMI

NATURAL 15-20%
MONO PAVED
COVER SURFACES

I ft RUNOFF In RUNOFF
29% 11% 1
SNALL211 INALLOW MP
MP NFLINAT011 INFILTU11101
MFLTRAT81 OFILTUTEN

31%
[VAPO. 31%
TRANVMATMI EVAPO.
36-10% TRAISMATION
PAYM 7 6- 1 101A
MACES PAVED
31%'BUNO" -69% Me" SURFACES

21% MID MLLOW
SNALL&IN OFILTUTON RFILTUTMI NMTUMN
EFILTRAYMN In

Source: Final Report of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Proaram, Final Draft,
Vo-77-, EPA, water Planning Division, December 1983, as cited in
J.T. Tourbier and R. Westmacott, Water Resources Protection Tech-
nology: A Handbook"of Measures to Protect Water Resources n
Land Development. p. 3.

The urban nonpoint source problem is most acute in more heavily populated
areas such as the Northeast or other major urban centers. It has been esti-
mated that urban nonpoint source problems affect 20% of the nation's ri'ver
miles and occur at some level in greater than 50% of the nation's drainage
basins.r741 Cumulative impacts downstream can be significant even if use
,OFF kTM @1

impairments at specific urban centers upstream have not been identified. If
preventive measures are not taken, urban nonpoint source problems can be
expected to increase anywhere that urbanization occurs.
1) 13131 1

TABLE 2.4 MOST FREQUENTLY DETECTED PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
IN NURP URBAN RUNOFF SAMPLES*

Detection Rate" Inoroanics Organics

Detected in 75% or more of Lead (94%) None
the NURP samples Zinc (94%)
Copper (91%)

------- ----------------------- -------
Detected in 50% - 74% of Chrcrnium (58%) None
the NURP samples Arsenic (52%)

---------------------------------------
Detected in 20% - 49% of Cadmium (48%) Bis (2-ethylhexyl)
NURP samples Nickel (43%) phthalate (22%)
Cyanides (23%) a-Hexachlorocyclo-
hexane (20%)

---------------------------------------
Detected in 10% 19% of Antimony (13%) a-Endosulfan (19%)
the NURP samples Beryllium (12%) Pentachlorophenol (19%).
Selenium (11%) Chlordane (17%)

(Lindane) ( 5%)
W
P rene (15%)
enol (14%)
Phenanthrene (12%)
Dichloromethane
(methylene
chloride) (11%)
4-Nitrophenol (10%)
Chrysene (10%)
Fl uoranthene (16%)

*Based on 121 sample results received as of September 30, 1983, adjust ed fo r
quality control review. Does not include special metals samples.
"Percentages indicate frequency of detection, not concentration. Analysis of
concentration shows that concentrations of copper, lead, and zinc were the
highest of any priority pollutant.

Source: Final Report of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program, Final Draft,
1, EPA, Water Planning Division, December 1983.

2-34

BEST WMGMENT PRACTICES FOR URBAN AREAS

Both structural and nonstructural management practices are available toA
control urban runoff. The principal structural alternatives are runoff
retention basins, in-line storage, and in-line screens. These methods retain
water and/or solids within basins and/or conveyance systems, or allow water to
percolate into the ground to reduce the peak flows and pollutants which reach
streams.

Additional alternatives are being tested to perform similar functions. These
include utilization of existing wetlands or creation of artificial wetlands to
provide settling of solids and vegetative filtration, and Nfirst flush diver-
sion systems" that route sane first increment of peak st-onn flows through
treatment plants . Nonstructural BMPs include good housekeeping practices and
lard use planning. Table A.5 in Appendix A displays selected BMPs and ranges
of effectiveness and associated costs. Figure A.1 in Appendix A summarizes
the results of an Orange County, Florida demonstration program which studied
the effe@tiveness of certain BMPs in removing specific pollutants.
The feasibility and cost of management alternat iv es must be evaluated in
relation to whether an area is already built up or is just beginning to be
developed. In established urban areas, structural control practices are very
expensive to implement, and nonstructural controls are limited in their
pollutant removal effectiveness. For instance, replacement of hard surfaces
with porous pavement or redesign of existing in-,line '_-zystems with accompanying
road and property disturbance can be prohibitively -,-3tly, and land for reten-
tion basins is either prohibitively expensive or not ivailable at all. On the
other hand, in heavily developed areas of cities, it is sometimes possible to
achieve limited reduction of some pollutants through good housekeeping prac-
tices. In general, however, land use planning and other urban runoff controls
have limited utility in highly developed urban areas.
The greatest potential for utilizing the full range of structural and non-
structura,l BMPs is in developing urban areas, Where the reduction of future
pollutant loadings can be realized for the least cost. There is a great
opportunity in such areas to employ land use planning to reduce future runoff
volumes and corresponding pollutant loads. Developing communities can incor-
porate structural measures to reduce long-term urban runoff volumes and can
also implernefft construction site erosion BMPs into their development plans.

The costs of urban EMPs are borne by the, municipality and its residents.
Benefits also accrue to this group and to society at large. Benefits of &MP
implementation can include improved potable water supplies, restored recrea-
tional opportunities, restored or continued comnercial fishing and shell-
fishing opportunities, and maintenance of land values due to the aesthetic
appearance of receiving waters. In addition, damage to drainage systems,
obstruction of nav ic. tion channels and harbors, and the frequency and severity
of f loods can be r-- -ed. Good housekeeping practices often have additiona
benefits to the lanc ers who apply them. For example, educational program@
on the proper use or fertilizers and pesticides frequently result in better-
lawns and gardens, and programs on proper streambank management not only
minimize erosion but improve the appear-l-ce and value of property. In this
regard, some local governments have dev@_-. aped video presentations for use at
public meetings to instruct landowners on how they can control erosion on
their property.

SUN MAR Y: CC M OL OF NONPOINT SOURCE RUNOFF FROM
DEVELOPED URMN AREAS VILL BE DIFFICULT

Water qual ity problems caused by urban nonpoint sources wil I be most acute in
heavily populated. built-up areas such as the Northeast. The most effective
control measures are structural, however, and opportunities for implementation
of these measures will be very limited in such situations. Developing urban
areas offer the greatest potential for utilizing the full range of structural
and nonstructural BMPs. Adoption of these measures is an important means of
reducing future urban nonpoint source pollutant loads.

Given the cost and other constraints of nonpoint source controls in developing
urban areas, particularly close attention must be paid to the nature of the
water quality problem in such areas. Results of the NURP study suggest that
water quality impacts from urban runoff may be more limited in scope and
geographical distribution than was previously suspected. Forthcaming EPA
publications will make the NURP results available to indiviudal communities,
and will include new methodologies to analyze water quality problems from
urban nonpoint sources.

2-36

CPAPTER 2: NOTES

Agriculture
1. RCA 1980 Appraisal, Part 1, USDA, p. 48.
2. U.S. EPA Regional Water Quality Management Coordinators Meeting, Boston,
Massachusetts, October 14, 1983.
3. Water Quality Management Needs Assessment FY'80-'84. Draft, U.S. EPA,
er Planning Division, Sept r 1980, P. 73.
4. A Framework for Anallzing National Water Pollution Control Policy: Water
Quality Impacts and Costs of Cropland Sediment Control- Resources for the
Future, July 1980, p. 21.
5. S. Batie and R. Healy, The Future of American Agriculture as a Strategic
Resource. The Conservation Foundation, 199U, p. Be.
6. P. M. Sturges,. Agricultural Water Pollution, Natural Resources Defense
Counci 1, p. 26.
7. Best Manuement Practices for Agricultural Nonpoint Source Control:
Commercial Fertilizer, North Cir-olina Extension Service, U.S. EPA, MDT,-
August 1982.

S. Ibid., Tables 3 and 4.
9. Rural Clean Water Program: Environmental Impact Statement, USDA, 1978.
10. Interview with agricultural nonpoint source experts in U.S. EPA Region 5,
Chicago, October 5 and-6, 1983.
11. Nonpoint Source Runoff: Information Transfer System, U.S. EPA, Office of
Water, July 1983, p. 2.F.-
12. RCA Potential Problem Area II Water QualitX: Problem Statement and
Objective Determination, USDA-, -july 1979, p. 51.
13. RCA Potential Problem Area 11 Water Quality: Problem Statement and
Objective Determination, USDA, July 1977.7
14. RCA Appraisal, Part I, USDA, pp. 120, 122.
15. Ibid., pp. 116, 118.
16. Nonpoint Source Runoff: Information Transfer System, U.S. EPA, Office of
Water, July 1983, p. Z.F.-
17. State of the Environment 1982, The Conservation Foundation, 1982, p. 225.
18. Ibid., p. 228.

19. F. White, J. Hairston, W. Musser, H. Perkins and J. Reed, ORelationship
Between Increased Crop Acreage and Nonpoint Source Pollution: A Georgia
Case Study," Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, May-June 1981.

CHAPTER 2: NOTES

20. J. Miranowski , M. Monson, J. Shortle, L. Zinser, Effect of Agricultural
Land Use Practices on Stream Water Qualitj: Economic Anallsis, U.S. EPA
Environmental Research Lab.- Athens, Georgia, September 1983.

21. Ibid.

22. Comments on draft Report to Congress: Nonpoint Source Pollution in th.e
U.S., submitted by Fertilizer Institute of America, December 1983.

23. Comments on draft Report to Congress: Nonpoint Source Pollutfon in the
U.S., sutrnitted by Tennessee Valley Authority, DecemFW71U.

Silviculture

24. Nonpoint Source Runoff: Information Transfer System, U.S. EPA$ Water
Planning Division, July 1983, p. 2.17.

25. Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act, 1980 Appraisal, Part 1, USDA,
1980, pp. 136-7.

26. G.E. Dissmey er and R.F. Stump, Predicted Erosion Rates from Forest
Management Activities in the Southeast, USDA Forest Service, Division of
Mate ana Private forestry, southeastern Area, April 1978 (erosion data
tables, pp. 14-26).

27. An Approach to Water Resources Evaluation of Nonpoint Silvicultural
Sources (WRENSS) U.S. EPA, USDA Forest Service, August 1981), P-07M.71-
71.5

28. Ibid. Ch. XI, "Introduced Chemicals' and studies cited therein.

29. Ibid. pp. XI.3 - X1.4.

30. Ibid. p. XI.5.
31. Nonpoint Source Runoff: Information Transfer, System, U.S. EPA, Water
Planning Division, July 1983, p. 217.
32. Ibid., p. 2.18; supported by interviews, Washington, D.C.; Soil and Water
Fe-sources Conservation Act, 1980 Appraisal, Part I. USDA, 1980, p. 13T.-
33. National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement
(NCASI). Forest Management Practices and Natural Events--Their Relation
to Landslides and Water Quality Protection, Technical Bulletin No.
June 1923.
34. An Approach to Water Resources Evaluation of Non2oint Silvicultural
Sources , U.S. EPA, USDA Forest Service, August, 1980, Table_s___rr_.r_-
M-14, pp. 11.18 - 11.55.
35. An Assessment of the Forest and Rangeland Situation of the United States,
USDA Forest Service, January 1980; supported by interviews, Washington-,
D.C. 2-38

CHAPTER 2: NOTES

36. National Commission on Water Quality, Cost and Effectiveness of Control
of Pollution from Selected Nonpoint Sources, November 1975, p. 11.
37. Interviews, USDA Forest Service and NCASI, Washington, D.C.
38. Interviews,, Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C.

39. Unpublished materials from USDA Forest Service.

40. Interviews, NCASI. Washington, D.C.
41. An Approach to Water Resources Evaluation of Nonpoint Silvicultural
Sources, U.S. EPA, USDA Forest Service, August 1980; also supported by
interviews; this appears to be the-position of the USDA Forest Service.
42. Nonpoint Source Runoff: Information Transfer System, U.S. EPA, Water
Planning Division, July 1983.
43. An Assessment of the Forest and Rangeland Situation of the United States,
USDA Forest Service, January 1980; interviews, USDA Forest Service,
Washington, D.C.
44. Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act, 1980 Appraisal, Part I, USDA,
1980, p. 134.

mining
45. Approval of State and Indian Reclamation Program Grants Under Title IV of
the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Final Environ-
mental Impact statement U.S. Department of Interior, Office of
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, November 1983, p. 111-46.
46. Methods for Identifying and Evaluating the Nature and Extent of Nonpoint
Sources of Pollutants, U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Water Programs,-
October 1973, p. 222.

47. Interviews, Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C.
48. Appalachian Regional Commission, Acid Mine Drainage in Appalachia, 1969;
Methods for Identifing and Evaluating the Nature and Extent of Nonpoint
Sources of Pollutants, U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Water- Programs,
October 1973, pp. 165-168.

49. Appalachian Regional Commission, Acid Mine Drainage in Appalachia, 1969.
50 Processes, Procedures, and Methods to Control Pollution from Mining
Activities, U.S. EPA, October 1983, pp. 209-211.

51. Interviews, Environmental Policy Center and Bureau of Land Management
(BLM), Washington, D.C.
52. Water Quality Management Needs Assessment FY'80-84, Draft, U.S. EPA,
Water Planning Division, September 1980, p. 96.

CHAPTER 2: NOTES

53. Unpubl ished U. S. EPA material s , Reg ion 8; Interv iew, Washington , D.C.

54. Interview, BLM, Washington, D.C.

55. Unpublished U.S. EPAmaterials, Region 3.
56. Pennsylvania 305(b) Report; unpublished material from U.S. EPA Regions.

57. J.R. Walpole, "Federal Water Pollution Laws and Mining: A Summary",
Mining Engineering, January 1981; unpublished U.S. EPA materials, Region
3.

58. Approval of State and Indian Reclamation Program Grants Under Title IV of
the Surface Mining Contro7_57 T-ecl amat ion Act of 1977, Final Environmen-
taal -T-mpact Statement, U.S. Department of the Interior', Off ice of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, November 1983, p. 111-17.

59. Interviews, BLM and Environmental Policy Center, Washington, D.C.
60. Approval of State and Indian Reclamation PrNram Grants Under Title IV of
the Surface Mini_n@gontrol an lamation Act Of 1917 Final En7ironmen-
tal Impact Statement, U.3. Department of thF Interior.' Office of Surface
Ri-Ming Reclamation and Enforcement, November 1983, p. 111-59.

61. National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Surface Mining
of Noncoal Minerals, 1979, p. xxix.

62. Ibid.

Construction

63. Water Quality Management Needs Assessment FY'80-'84, Draft, U.S. EPA,
Water Planning Division, 1980, p. 106.
64. Report on 1!@elementation of the FWPCA, Subcommittee on Oversight and
Review of the House committee on Public works and Transportation, House
Report No. 97-71, 96th Congress, Second Session, 1980, p. 20.

65. Midwest Research Institute, Cost and Effectiveness of Control of Pollu-
tion from Selected Nonpoint Sources, Prepared for the National Commission
on Water Quality, 1975; Anne Weinberg, et al., Nonpoint Source Pollution:
Land Use and Water Quality, University of Wisconsin Extension Service,
USUA9 1919.

66. Interview with Byron Lord, Federal Highway Administration, Office of
Research, Development and Technology, November 21, 1983.

67. Nonpoint Source Runoff: Information Transfer System, U.S. EPA, Office of
Water, 1983.

68. Ibid.

2-40

CHAPTER 2: NOTES

69. Interview with Robert Probst, Federal Highway Administration, Novernber'9,
1983.

70. Midwest Research Institute. Cost and Effectiveness of Control of Pollu-
tion from Selected Nonpoint S6-urces, Prepared for the National L=ission
on Water Quality, 1975.

Urban Runoff

71. Report on Implementation of FWPCA, Subcommittee on Oversight and Review
of the House Comnittee on Pubri@c Works and Transportation, House Report
No. 96-71, 96th Congress, Second Session (1980).
72. Final Report of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program, Final Draft, Vol. 1,
U.S. EFA, water Planning Division, Uecember 15183.

73. Ibid.

74. Water Qualitj Needs Assessment FY'80-'84, Draft, U.S.-EPA, Water Planning
Division, 1980, p. 103; Peyton M. Sturges, Agricultural Water Pollution,
Natural Resources Defense Council, 1983.

n Al

CHAPTER 3

Current Programs Directed at Controlling
Nonpoint Source Pollution

INTROOU CTION

In the preceding chapters, we examined the nature, magnitude, and extent of
nonpoint source pollution problems, and the variety of approaches that can be
used to reduce these problems. In Chapter 3, we will examine the kinds of
programs being undertaken by Federal, State, and local governments to manage
nonpoint sources of pollution and describe the manner in which the
responsibility for such programs rests at the State and local levels.
EPA and Other Federal Agencies Have Been Active
in Addressing NoWint Source PolIRTo-n
As part of the water quality management program, planning under Section 208 of
the Clean Water Act. required State and areawide agencies to identify water
quality problems related to point and nonpoint sources. During the period
from 1974 to 1981, the Federal government provided grants to States,
Territories, and 176 areawide agencies for overall water quality management
purposes under Sections 106 and 208. Portions of these funds were directed at
identifying nonpoint source problems and developing strategies for their
control. By 1982, 213 water quality management plans, which contained
elements addressing nonpoint source pollution control, were approved by EPA.
Continuing ccmponents of the EPA water quality manigement program that support
State management of nonpoint sources include the basic water quality program
support. grants (Section 106) and grants to support planning ( Section 205(j)).
During the 1970s, EPA also began a process of working with other Federal
agencies to identify the manner in which their programs affect nonpoint
sources of pollution, and, in some cases, to develop agreements ensuring that
Federally funded projects minimize pollution from these sources. Other
agreements negotiated with Federal agencies allowed the States and EPA to use
the field resources available through programs such as those offered by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to provide technical assistance on the
management of nonpoint sources of pollution.
Now, 9 years after the initiation of this water quality management planning
process, EPA can report that a significant anount of activity and resources is
being devoted to identifying and controlling nonpoint source pollution
problems at the Federal, State, and local levels of government. These
activities are unevenly distributed, however, and vary in their effectiveness.
In any case, it is essential to evaluate the nature and scope of these
activities so that the needs that remain in the management of nonpoint
sources can be perceived.

Structureof Chapter 3
The material that follows describes program activities currently being
undertaken to control nonpoint source pollution at the State level, as well as

3-1

the Fed era 1 act ions th at support to these efforts. The discussion is
organized by the five nonpoint source categories analyzed in Chapter 2, and is
preceded by overviews of activities at the State and Federal levels. Detailed
tables sunmarizing State and Federal activities are presented in Appendix B.
Although an effort has been made to be comprehensive, the State-by-State
descriptions are limited by the amount of detailed information currently
available about the nonpoint source control activities now being performed in
each State. Table 3.1 surimarizes State program information (otnerwise found
in Tables B.1, B.2, and B.4 in Appendix B) for three nonpoint sources:
agriculture, silviculture, and construction. Local nonpoint source programs
are too numerous and varied to either summarize or categorize. In order to
present sane flavor of the kinds of activities being undertaken by State and
local governments,, however, some brief case examples are included for several
nonpoint source categories.

AN OVERVIEW OF STATE NOMPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM

States have undertaken a wide range of. responses to nonpoint source pollution
probl ems. These responses v ary according to the source , and to the technical ,
institutional, and - political difficulties inherent in managing it. Sane
general observations can be made, however, about State management of specific
types of nonpoint sources.

Agriculture

Agricultural nonpoint source programs are usually voluntary, and a variety of
agricultural agencies provides very localized technical support and assistance
(e.g., USDA's Soil Conservation Service (SCS), Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service (ASCS), and Extension Service, and local soil and water
conservation districts) . Nineteen State programs provide cost sharing as an
incentive to farmers* to implement appropriate conservation measures or best
management practices (BMPs) . Enforcement measures are seldom used and are
usua'," limited to situations where cause and effect relationships can be
eas i I ;stablished, as in the case of many small feedlot operations.

Silviculture

In States wliere the forest industry has significant landholdings and is very
active, silvicultural programs tend to be regulatory or quasi-regulatory* in
nature. In States where small-lot silviculture is more commonly practiced,
voluntary, r-icational, and sometimes incentive-oriented programs are aimed at
private lanoowners.

*Regulatory programs are those where silvicultural activities are directly
controlled by way of a forest practices act. Quasi-regulatory programs use
other laws such as sediment and erosion control laws to achieve control
objectives.

3-2

TABLE 3.1 SUMMARY OF STATE NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAMS

AGRICULTURE SILVICULTURE CONSTRUCTION
Cost Share
Current Cost Funds
Program Share mill.) Current Program
@AL Voluntary Voluntary

AK (Planned) Regulatory
AR Voluntary Voluntary
AK Voluntary Voluntary
CA Voluntary Regulatory
CO Voluntary Voluntary
CT Voluntary Yes .03 Voluntary Regulatory
DE Voluntary Regulatory
FL Voluntary Voluntary
GA Voluntary Voluntary Regulatory
HI voluntary Ouasi-Regulatory Regulatory
10 Vo I untary/ Regulatory Yes 1.00 Regulatory
IL Vo I untary/ Reg ul atory Yes .50 Voluntary Regulatory
IN Voluntary Yes .40
IA Quasi-Regulatory Yes 8.49 Regulatory
KS Voluntary Yes & loans 1.25

KY Voluntary Voluntary
LA Voluntary Voluntary
PE Voluntary/Regulatory Quasi-Regulatory Quasi-Regulatory
MO Voluntary/Regulatory Yes 5.00 Voluntary Regulatory
PIA Voluntary Quasi-Regulatory
MI Voluntary/Regulatory Voluntary Regulatory
MH Voluntary Yes 1.54 Voluntary
?4S Voluntary Voluntary

MO Voluntary Yes 3.

*This table summarizes information from three tables in Appendix B. Information on this table is dravin from
sources cited on these tables in the Appendix.

TABLE 3.1 SUMMARY OF STATE NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAMS (CONTINUED)

AGRICULTURE ---- SILVICULTURE CONSTRUCTION
Cost Share
Current Cost Funds
Program Share (s mill.) Current Program
MT Voluntary Loans Voluntary Regulatory
NE Voluntary Yes 1.44

MV Voluntary/Regulatory Quasi-Regulatory
NH Voluntary/Regulatory Quasi-Regulatory
NJ Voluntary Yes S0.00** Voluntary Regulatory
W4 Voluntary Voluntary
NY Voluntary Voluntary
NC Voluntary Voluntary Regulatory
ND Voluntary Yes .45
04 Voluntary Yes .28 Regulatory
OK Voluntary Yes .01 Voluntary
OR Voluntary Regulatory
PA Voluntary/Regulatory Quasi-Regulatory Regulatory
RI Voluntary Regulatory
SC Voluntary Voluntary
so Voluntary/Regulatory Yes .40 Voluntary Regulatory
TN Voluntary Voluntary
TX Wuntary
Ur Voluntary Yes & loans Voluntary
WT Voluntary Voluntary Quasi-Regulatory
VA Voluntary Yes .10 Voluntary Regulatory
WA Voluntary Regulatory
WV Voluntary Voluntary
W1 Voluntary Yes 4.13 Voluntary

WY Voluntary Yes .02 Voluntary
PR Voluntary/Regulatory Developing Program
VI Developing Program

TOTALS:

39 Voluntary 19 Cost 29 Voluntary 16 Regulatory
10 Voluntary/Regulatory Share 5 Regulatory 2 Quasi-Regulatory
I Quasi-Regulatory 6 Quasi-Regulatory 2 Developing Programs
1 Planned

"Total amount is for purchase of prime agricultural lands; a portion is available for water quality purposes.

Mining

Control programs that address currently operating coal mines are regulatory in
nature and derive their authority frcm the Federal Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act (SMCRA). Programs for abandoned mines usually involve the
prcNision of financial assistance by State and Federal governments through the
abandoned mines program of SMCRA, the Rural Abandoned Mines Program (USDA), or
individual State programs.

Construction

Programs for the control of construction erosion are regulatory in nature,
where they exist. Only about 16 States have effective regulatory programs.
In States that do not have a Statewide regulatory mandate, some individual
local governments regulate.

Urban Runoff

Urban runoff control programs are normally conducted by municipalities and, at
present, are primarily directed at controlling the volume of urban runoff,
although increasing attention is being given to incorporating water quality
considerations as well.

AN OVERVIEW OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

The activities of Federal agencies are important in the management of certain
nonpoint sources because they concern either direct management of Federally
owned land (Bureau of Land Management within the U. S. Department of the
Interior), Forest Service within USDA, etc.) or are programs designed to
assist private landowners. Nonpoint source problems are land management
pr ob 1 ems .Thus, agencies with programs that reach the land manager, or that
affect the relationship between the State and the land manager, are key to the
implementation of nonpoint source controls for agriculture, silviculture,
construction, and mining.

Various USDA programs provide not only technical assistance
to individual landowners, 'but also a range of incentives
that affect the manner in wtich the landowner chooses to
manage the land. In addition, USDA manages significant
amounts of public land. Its programs affect agricultural,
silvicultural, and mining nonpoint sources.
The Office of Surface Mining (U.S. Department of the
Interior) implements SMCRA, which regulates the activities
of operating and abandoned coal mines.

The Federal Highway Administration within the U.S.
Department of Transportation grants billions of dollars of
Federal Highway Trust Fund monies to construct interstate
and Federal highways, and conditions such grants on the
application of appropriate BMPs.

The above programs are discussed in more detail in this chapter, and EPA's
nonpoi nt- source- related programs are outlined at the end of the chapter.

Other Federal programs both affect and provide support for control of nonpoint
sources. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for example, conducts
comprehensive watershed analysis programs that address water quality and water
quantity concerns. In addition, the Corps issues permits for a variety of
activities that take place in or affect navigable waters. The Tennessee
Valley Authority provides technical assistance to landowners in its region.
This technical assistance is directed toward a variety of purposes, including
management of nonpoint sources of pollution. In addition, huge landholdings
are managed by the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service for
multiple-use purposes. Grazing, mining, and silvicultural activities may take
place on these publicly ovmed lands. Elaborate planning processes are
undertaken to ensure protection of the resource base and use of these lands
for a variety of activities.

NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAMS IN AGRICULTURE

Agricultural State Progr ams

Most State programs addressing agricultural nonpoint source contro' have
recognized the ieed to take advantage of the existing network of Fe%jeral,
State, and local agric-ultural agencies that routinely work directly with
farmers and have already gained their trust. In many cases, the State
agricultural or water quality agency has been given the authority to
administer the State's nonpoint source control effort in relation to
agricultural sources. Local soil and water conservation districts have been
assigned a key role in the implementation of nonpoint source programs. This
institutional arrangement has several strengths. First, it allows tapping an
existing network of agricultural technicians capable of reaching local farmers
and generating a positive response. Second, these individuals understand
farming practices and are able to provide important technical assistance for
the adoption and management of agricultural BMPs.

Merging Agricultural and Water Quality Programs
at the State Level Has Advantages and Disadvantages
Most activities addressing the water quality aspects of agricultural nonpoint
sources are part of programs having broader objectives. These include
improvement of productivity, reduction of erosion, and delivery of information
and education on agricultural practices. This situation offers advantages and
problems. The advantages have already been described: the existence of an
efficient and effective network of people and programs that has sought and
gained the fanner's trust. Problems can be broadly characterized as a lack of
targeting toward the achievement of priority water quality objectives and the
absence of a clear definition regarding the reiiationship between conservation
and water quality management.

Federal agricultural agencies use "T" (the rate of soil loss that allows for
the maintenance of soil productivity) as a planning objective. While such
goals can be complementary to water quality goals, the two are not always

3-6

equivalent. Scme of those lands eroding most heavily, and thus affecting
productivity, do not deliver enough sediment and related pollutants to produce
severe water quality problems. Conversely, other lards on which erosion is
currently under "T" may be causing significant water quality problems.
Differing sediment delivery rates (due to soil type, topography, and proximity
to the weter course) and other factors (such as nutrient delivery) cause the
d i scre pancy. In a program managed primarily for productivity, a landowner
would not continue to receive technical or financial assistance in this latter
situation. Technical and financial support frcrn agricultural agencies would
flow to areas exceeding "T", directed by those institutional objectives
oriented toward productivity.
Even where soils are eroding and sediment is being delivered at comparable
rates frcm two different sites, the water quality impacts from each may 'be
very different. The impacts will differ by the type of receiving water body,
its sensitivity, and its existing condition. They will also differ in the
type, volume, and toxicity of the other pollutants carried directly in the
runoff water or associated with the migrating sediment. Water-qual ity-based
decisions on the priority of controlling the nonpoint source pollution from
each site are affected by the uses of the receiving water bodies as well.
Agricultural agenc 'ies, on the other hand, generally have been inclined to
treat eroding soils in- different sites equally in terms of control priority.
As a result, most agricultural cost-share programs for erosion control are
distributed to farmers who volunteer their participation. USDA is beginning
to target some of its resources to the most severely eroding cropland in the
nation.

Targeting for soi.1 erosion and managing for water quality are not antithetical
objectives. In many instances, control of soil erosion may prevent future
nonpoint-source-related weter quality problems. In other instances, however,
targeting for soil conservation may limit resources available to undertake
needed remedial measures. In addition, as mentioned previously, targeting for
soil erosion may miss scme areas with relatively low erosion rates and high
sediment delivery ratios.
Where local and State agricultural and water quality agencies are able to work
together and integrate water quality and erosion control objectives, a
combined program can be highly successful for wate@ quality. In situations
where State agricultural agencies disburse resources for erosion control
purposes exclusively, the best results may not be achieved for water quality
goals . Several States have adopted an approach of managing nonpoint source
control on a watershed basis, rather than basing management on some other land
area, or on a strictly source-specific foundation. This technique allows the
effective targeting of land areas that are the most important sources of water
qual ity problems.

.State Agricultural Noneoint Source
Control Progrms Are Widespread -
Most State programs for control of agricultural nonpoint sources involve
voluntary participation rather than regulation, and incorporate educational
and technical assistance aspects . Many States now also offer financial
incentives for the adoption of BMPs. Agricultural nonpoint source control

3-7

CASE EXAMPLE

A LOCAL PROGRAM:
CONTROLLING AGRICULTURAL POLLUTION IN IOWA r1l

The Problem: Nutrients

love has some significant erosion problems, particularly tho se arising from
agricultural use of the land. In Shelby County, Iowa, Prairie Rose Lake has
suffered severe water quality degradation as a result of excessive sediment,
pesticide, and nutrient runoff from the watershed surrounding the lake. The
extensive agricultural land use in the watershed has been primarily responsi-
ble for the high nutrient loads that stimulate algal growth and accelerate the
lake's eutrophication. Concern developed regarding the poor condition of the
man-made lake because it is an important recreational resource for west
central love; since 1971 alone, 10% of the usable boating and fishing area and
19% of the lake volume have been lost.

The Prairie Rose watershed has one of the highest erosion rates in Iowa, with
an annual average soil loss of approximately 20 tons per acre. About 62% of
the cropland has an annual soil loss rate of 30 tons per acre. The first step
toward restoring the water quality of the lake was directed at reducing the
erosion rate. By diminishing sediment delivery, the input o f nutrients and
pesticides to the lake should also be reduced.

The Approach: A Rural Clean Water Project

A Rural Clean Water Project (RCWP) was initiated on the watershed in 1980 by
USDA and EPA with the objective of controlling soil erosion on 80% of the
cropland area, with 75% of the landowners participating. Cost-share funds
amounting to $700,noO became available through the RCWP in August 1980 for
project implementation, and contracts with landowners will be developed by the
Soil Conservation Service staff over a five-year period. As of October 1983,
32 of the 47 landowners approached had applied for RCWP contracts, and 28
contracts had been signed. The 28 signed contracts cover 75% of the cropland
area.

The Success: Practices Have Been Implemented
and Pollutant Loads Have Been Reduced

Various BMPs are being implemented in the Prairie Rose Lake RCWP for soil ero-
sion control, pesticide management, and nutrient management. As of November
1982, conservation t4l.lage was being employed on 56n acres, permanent vegeta-
tion had been appliea to 48 acres, 50 miles of terraces had been built, eight
sediment retention basins had been constructed, and 23 farms were employing
both nutrient management and integrated pest management systems.
Due to the pollutant control measures applied to the watershed over the two
years of RCWP implementation, a dramatic improvement in the water quality of
Prairie Rose Lake has resulted. Between 1981 and 1982, a sediment delivery
reduction of almost 50% occurred, along with a parallel reduction in sediment-
associated pesticides and nutrients. Decreases in mean surface water
turbidity of 33% and in mean bottom water turbidity of 5n% have been recorded
over this time period. Both algal productivity and phosphorus levels were
also reduced.

programs a? prov el under Section 208 have been established in 48 States, and 39
of these tates are now involved in implementing programs. In addition, 19
States administer cost-sharing programs for-the implementation of EMPs. These
programs have annual budgets ranging from $10,000 to almost $8.5 million.
Most of the agricultural cost-sharing programs were originally established for
the purpose of controlling soil erosion. Several are now used to implement
BMPs to achieve voter quality goals. Two States are managing low-cost loan
programs, and one State is fostering a tax credit program to promote the
adoption of 114Ps . Table B.1 in Appendix 8 provides a listing and description
of State programmatic efforts. Demonstration projects have taken place in
many States as a means of prompting specific management practices and usually
involve the provision of technical and financial assistance to selected
cooperators.

Federal Agricultural Programs
Federal agricultural programs may have a two-fold effect on water quality.
First, specific commodities, pr@grams may provide incentives that lead to the
adoption of agricultural cropping practices that increase the generation of
nonpoint source pollutants. For example, it is widely believed that Federal
policies encouraging the growing of grains in many cases provided the
incentives for massive conversion to row crops, which took place during the
mid-to-late 1970s.[2] Row crops foster more erosion than field crops do. (A
specific examination of agricultural -commodities programs is beyond the scope
of this report.)
A second effect of the numerous USDA programs is more positive: the technical
and financial assistance that they provide can be used to promote those
agricultural BMPs that, protect water quality. In most instances, water
quality protection is a side effect of these programs, which usually focus on
productivity and erosion control. Two examples of this type of program are
described below:
The Agricultural Conservation Program conducted by the
Agricultural Stablization and Conservation Service provides
up to $3,500 to individual farmers for erosion control and
soil conservation measures. Funds for these purposes are
distributed by local ASCS committees as widely as possible
and are not routinely targeted for water quality
improv anent . ASCS special project funds have been used,
however, to implement best management practices to achieve
water quality goals in small watersheds.
s Both the Soil Conservation Service and the Agricultural
Extension Service (USDA) provide technical assistance for
soil and water conservation activities. Again, much of this
assistance is geared toward erosion control. However, in a
number of locations, local Extension Service agents and SCS
staff have been active in assisting States and localities in
providing technical assistance to farmers in critical water
quality areas.

In a few important instances, specific programs implemented by USDA
demonstrate the potential effectiveness of merging water quality and erosion
control objectives. Two examples of such programs follow:
0 The Model Implementation Program (MIP), operated by ASCS,
demonstrated effective management practi*ces to control
runoff from agricultural activities in a few demonstration
projects around the country. This program was a forerunner
of the Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP) (described below)
and helped provide guidance for the implementation of that
program.
9 The Experimental Rural Clean Water Program, conducted * by
ASCS, is designed to provide incentives for the
implementation of agricultural BMPs to solve nonpoint source
water quality problems. This program provides long-term
technical and financial assistance to farmers in 21
watersheds across the country.
Table B.2 in Appendix B summarizes major Federal programs addressing
agricultural nonpoint sources.

NOMPOINT SOURCE PROGRAMS IN SILVICULTURE

State Silvicultural Progrms
The success of regulatory versus nonregulatory State programs is largely
dependent on the number and size of silvicultural operations. and on political
factors. Five western States have large forestry industries with major land
holdings. Industrial landowners are easier to regulate, and the cost of BMPs
can be more readily absorbed by these larger entities or passed on to buyers.
These States regulate a wide range of silvicultural practices through
individua 1,3rest practices acts. In other areas, such as the Southeast
holdings _- generally smaller. BMP-costs can be difficult for landowners t@
absorb, ai,,; effectively enforcing regulations for numerous small landowners is
politically and institutionally difficult.
Some States rely instead on nquasi-regulatorym approaches to control forest
lards by employing existing sediment and erosion control la%s or water quality
regulations. These programs are generally effective where techniral
assistance, local concern, education,, ar.-7 adequate enforcement @are present.
The most important step appears to be the integration of witer quality
concerns into normal forest management procedures. Scme States also provide
incentiv,e programs for managing silvicultural nonpoint sources. These
programs commonly feature technical assistance and targeted cost sharing to
facilitate achie,.;,ment of water quality goals. Table B.3 in Appendix B
describes State - vicultural programs.
Almost all Statr- .jse voluntary educational programs with or without a regula-
tory program. ise programs are targeted to reach landowners, land managers,
timber operato- , and others involved in silvicultural operations. A full
assessment of :a effectiveness of these programs is not available. There is

utility in educational programs that seek to inform landowners of the link
between benefits of reducing soil loss and possible increases in productivity.
Short-term benefits are not likely to be perceived by small landowners for
whom BMPs are costly and for whom long-term reforestation and reharvesting are
not objectives. A forestry water quality training program has been jointly
developed by the U.S. Forest Service and EPA and is being used in many State
educational programs.
As shown in Table B.3, ten States have no control programs and are not
planning any. Most, but not all, of these States lack significant forest
lands or have not identified silviculture as a nonpoint source problem, and
others maintain that existing management programs are adequate for the scope
of the problem.

Federal Silvicultural Programs
The Federal government owns 26% of the commercial forest land in the country.
In several regions of the country (the Pacific Northwest, the Northern
Rockies, and the Southern Rockies) , the majority of commercial forest land is
Federally owned.
Forestry programs are conducted by USDA's Forest Service. Federal
silvicultural activities an government-owned lands are controlled directly by
the Forest Service under its own management schemes; the conduct of private
operators on these lands is regulated by timber sales contracts. Sane States
report on lack of cooperation in implementing water-quality-related BMPs in
certain forests.[3] Often the reason given is budget limitations.
State and private forestry programs are managed cooperatively by USDA and by
the States, and provide technical assistance to State and private forest
managers for a variety of purposes. Table B.4 in Appendix B describes
significant Federal programs that support silvicultural nonpoint source
m anag em ent .

NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAMS IN MINING

State Mining Progrms
Operating coal mines are regulated as a point source by the States under
authorities provided by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
(SMCRA). Although existing regulations require control of erosion from haul
roads, sedimentation from these roads may be a source of nonpoint pollutants
when they are improperly constructed or located beyond the perimeter of the
permitted area. Delays in implementing final SMCRA regulations and in issuing
permanent permits mean that operating mines continue to operate under interim
permits which generally do not fully regulate the discharge of pollutants
contributed by mining activities .
The Office of Surface Mining of the Department of the Interior continues to
collect fees for each ton of coal mined. These monies are deposited in the
Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Fund, and are directed to a variety of priori-
ties, including public health, safety, and environmental protection.

CASE EXAMPLE

A STATE PROGRAM:
A SILVICULTURAL INDUSTRY SELF-POLICING PROGRAM IN vmowm

.The Plan
In 1977, the Secretary of Vermont's Agency of Environmental Conservation (AEC)
appointed the Section 208 Forestry Runoff Committee to be responsible for
developing a silvicultural nonpoint source plan. The committee was to
identify problens, examine research data, review adequacy of existing laws and
regulations, and recommend implementable solutions for controlling nonpoint
source runoff fran silvicultural activities. The recommendations developed by
this study became the basis of the water quality management forestry plan.
The final plan recommended a strt;ng educational approach for forest landowners
and timber harvesters, together with seilf-policing of logging sites by the
forest industry.

Putting The Plan To Work

Under the certified forestry plan, the Vermont Timber Truckers and Producers
Association (VTTPA) divided the State into three sections and elected a three-
member committee in each section. All complaints concerning logging-related
water quality problems are referred to the State agency. If the problem is
sufficiently serious, the VTTPA committee visits the logger responsible to
encourage him to resolve the problems with appropriate best management prac-
tices (BMPs) . The State becomes involved in onsite visits to loggers only
when the logging industry's self-policing effort fails to bring about a
solution.

The rigorous educational and informational approach called for-in the forestry
plan has been developed. There are four projects involved, including a
handbook, workshops, press coverage, and model timber sale contracts.

Results

Since the program began in July 1979i the committees have met with loggers on
many occasions and satisfactorily resolved water qua@ity problens by encour-
aging the use of BMPs. State water resource investigators have reported a new
attitude and a higher level of responsibility on the part of loggers who have
been contacted . Problems encouhtered have been resolved quickly and
efficiently.

Workshops for loggers were held to provide technical information, demonstra-
tions, a review of legislat. and assistance in the control -f nonpoint
source runoff. Evaluation forms completed @y worksho7- -_,@articipe- revealed a
high level of acceptance and impact.

Contributing to the success of the training sessions nas been the cosponsor-
ship of programs by industrial companies, including the St. Regis Corporation
and International Paper Company.

Unfortunately, not enough money is available for all priorities and funds are
now being directed principally toward safety-related measures such as mine
f ires . Water quality does not currently receive a high priority. The fees
fran surface and underground mining will raise an estimated $3 billion over
its 15-year legislated life.[5]
There is not an adequate inventory of the nature, extent, and effectiveness of
State programs that address noncoal mining. Mining operations in this
category incl ude metal s mini ng , sand and gravel , phosphate mini ng , peat
mining, etc. A 1979 report fr 'an the National Academy of Sciences noted that
there are significant gaps for controlling the unwanted effects of noncoal
mining. Many States have reclamation laws but provide no practical power for
enforcement; specifically, they lack technical requirements for the' mining of
noncoal minerals.[6] Abandoned metal mines remain largely unaddressed by
Federal and State laws.

Federal Mining Programs
Federal programs addressing coal-related nonpoint source problems are exten-
sive and are derived from SMCRA. Programs relating to other kinds of mining
are aimed primarily at those activities that take place on. Federal lands.
Both the Forest Service and the Bureau of Reclamation within the Department of
the Interior (DOI) have extensive nonpoint source control requirements for
these activities. Numerous unrelated Federal programs address the various
environmental impacts from mining activities (e.g., solid waste disposal and
water pollution). Several other DOI programs provide technical and financial
assistance, as well as research on mine-related vater quality programs. The
USDA operates a small Rural Abandoned Mine program. Table B.5 in Appendix 8
sumarizes major Federal programs related to mining.

NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAMS IN CONSTRUCTION

State Construction Programs
Construction nonpoint source problems are normally dealt with by regulatory,
p@rmit- supported programs that require BMP 'implementation and site planning
aimed at construction sites. Sixteen States and the District of Columbia have
enacted erosion or sedimentation control laws, and several other State
I eg is 1 atures are considering similar bills. Table B.6 shows the
State-by-State status of construction sediment control laws. Sane of these
laws are weakened by long lists of sediment control exemptions for various
activ ities . However, many State and local governments have developed
!ngineering guidelines that address nonpoint source pollution and are
incorporated in contracts for construction of public buildings and roads.
Enforcement of regulations is critical to an effective program, but is often
the weakest and most expensive link in the regulatory process. Another
critical element involves the cooperative efforts of State and local agencies
and private developers. Agreements between different entities, defining
institutional and programmatic responsibilities, must be negotiated to
implement laws and regulations properly. For example, coordination between
State highway agencies, %,hich receive Federal Highway Administration (FHA)

funds to aid in highway construction, and agencies charged with the
enforcement of erosion control laws is essential to achieving solutions to
nonpoint source problems.

A LOCAL PROGRAM:

MONTGO14ERY COUNTY, 14ARYLAND TAKES ACTION
TO CONTROL CONSTRUCTION EROSION[7]
The regulatory program in.Wntgomery County, Maryland is an example of a
local program that has been successful in reducing sediment loads 60 to
80%. This county, part of the Washington, 0.'-'. metropolitan area, began
to study its sediment problems in 1962. It collected data on fand use,
climate, and pollutant parameters throughout the 1960s. Montgomery County
found that strictly enforced sediment controls would reduce suspended
sediments in the Anacostia River basin by 50% at a cost of $1,030 per
acre. In 1971, the county was the first in the nation to enact a
mandatory sediment and erosion control ordinance. It requires that
sediment, erosion, and stormwater control measures meeting State and local
standards be implemented in subdivisions. Penn it fees support the
programnatic costs. The program is enforced via authority to withdraw
permits for ordinance violations and stop-work orders that can be backed
up by arrest.

Federal Construction Programs
Although various soil conservation programs of the USDA (e.g., the SCS and
Extension Service) may provide technical assistance for site planning and
related construction BMPs (see "Federal Agricultural Programsu), there are no
Federal programs directly related to construction erosion.
The Federal Highway Administration, which provides funds to State highway
agencies, has a Memorandum of Understanding with EPA concerning implementation
of nonpoint source controls. The FHA has erosion control standards and
requires implementation of control measures. FHA field staff in every State
monitor implementation. In addition, the agency conducts ongoing research to
improve construction erosion BMPs.[8]

NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAMS FOR URBAN AREAS

State Urban Runoff Progrms,
In general, States dc. t control urban runoff by designing specific programs
for the source as . i do for agricultural or silvicultural runoff, for
ex ampl e. State dgencies, address urban runoff as part of their overall water
qual ity program. States also frequently provide the enabling legislation that
allows local governments to use techniques such as land use controls. In most
instances, implementation of controls is left to local communities, and the

1- 1 A

effectiveness of programs is limited by the amount of State and local
resources available for addressing urban runoff.
Institutional issues are significant considerations in the urban nonpoint
source area. Problems of financing control measures and coordinating among
different jurisdictions are key concerns. Many urban areas encompass several
communities, and intergovernmental cooperation is an important institutional
consideration.
Regulatory programs vary from State to State according to the enabling
authorities available. The burden of implementing and enforcing regulations
may fall an local, county, or State agencies. In addition, several States
have reported that cost-share programs are in place.[9] The programmatic
approaches used by urban communities include direct expenditures for
structural or nonstructural controls, educational programs aimed at
implementing good housekeeping practices, and regulatory programs to enforce
good housekeeping practices and the proper maintenance of structural BMPs.
Local regulations are also aimed at site planning and design requirements and
management of land use. Sane of the greatest opportunities for control of
nonpoint source pollution from urban areas are found in the developing section
of these areas. A notable amount of control activity is occurring at the
local level and offers the potential for effective experience and information
transfer.

A LOCAL PROGRAM:

CONTROLLING URBAN RUNOFF IN BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON (10]
One of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program , (NURP) projects that is
examining institutional issues and various BMPs is in Bellevue,
Washington. This suburban community has grown rapidly from 5,000 in 1954
to 80,000 in 1979. Seventy percent of its 19,000 acres is developed. To
address the stormwater runoff problems that accompanied this growth,
Bellevue established a city Storm and Surface Water Utility in 1974. The
utility provides an organizational structure different from most public
works departments and has proven to be an efficient enforcement and
finance mechanism. Residential utility service charges, averaging $1.60
bimonthly, generate about $600,000 annually, an amount which just meets
the costs of the utility. Erosion and sediment controls are required for
construction sites as is post-development runoff management, including
operation and maintenance requirements for permanent controls. Major
drainage system improvements, such as storage/detention basins, channel
lining and cleaning, and stormwater drains, are included in a drainage
master plan. The costs for the master plan improvements average $1,000
per acre.

The two major impediments to instituting effective nonpoint source control
programs are (1) problem identification and (2) the cost and difficulty of
implementing BMPs, especially in established urban areas. In addition, the
technical complexity of clearly establishing impacts on designated uses has

made it diff icult to agree ' on the appropriate level of financing for
addressing the urban nonpoint source problem. It is difficult to persuade a
community to burden itself with runoff controls when the consequences are
imprecisely known, not immediately evident, or occur downstream.
Federal Urban Runoff Progrms
The Nationwide Urban Runoff Program was established by EPA primarily to
examine urban nonpoint source pollutant loadings and the effectiveness and
costs of various management practices. Twenty-eight urban areas from
different parts of the country (representing different climates, geographic
areas, and hydrologic regimes) were selected for intensive study of the urban
ni--npoint source problem and associate. control measures. The -NURP projects
[email protected] selected from among Section 208 p ects and were designed to facilitate
in-!-*omation transfer among the irdivid-.,,,, projects and with other urban areas
across the county. The major findings of NURP are in the process of being
sumnarized and will be released in final form in a final report now
anticipated for release !- July 1984. The data base provided by KJRP is
computerized on EPA's STGkET system and will provide a source of additional
insights for years to come.

PROGRAMS OF THE BIVIRONNEKTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
The responsibilities of the EPA cut across nonpoint source categories and are
directed toward the cleanup of any sources of pollutants that impede the
achievement of water quality goals. Nonetheless, drafters of the Clean Water
Act (CWA) recognized that control problems presented by nonpoint sources of
pollution are inherently different from those posed by point sources, and that
appropriate nonpoint source controls could only be implemented after careful
planning and consideration of a variety of factors that can only be examined
on a case-by-'Case basis at a very localized level. Sections 208 and 303
establish a planning and implementation framework that encourages integrated
problem assessment and a comprehensive water quality management program within
States. Section 208 of the CWA provided funds to States and areawide agencies
to analyze the extent of non poi nt- source- related water quality problems and to
develop implementation strategies for addressing these problems.
The Section 208-funded water quality management planning effort was largely
completed by FY181. EPA approved 213 water quality management plans generated
by State and areawide agencies. The review of State programs incorporated in
this report suggests that a number of States have developed varying levels of
nonpoint source control programs as a direct result of Section 208 activity.
EPA has continued to support the States in their development of nonpoint
source control programs through other funded sections of the CWA. Sections
106 and 205(j) have provided basic direction and support for State nonpoint
source activities. While Section 205(g) funds are also eligib"a for nonpoint
source activities, they are not in widespread use due to high demand to
address point source program needs. These programs are sumnarized in Table
3.2.

In addition, EPA continues to support a variety of experimental and
research-oriented programs, the results of which will provide technical

TABLE 3.2 EPA'S MAJOR NONPOINT-SOURCE-RELATED PROGRAMS

PROGRAM NAME BASIC PURPOSE RELATIONSHIP TO MPS CONTROL CURRENT ACTIVITIES

WATER QUALITY
PLANNING AND
MANAGEMENT

0 Basic later quality Can be utilized to Activities funded include
program support. support State planning management of State
and implementation pollution control pro-
106 a Provision of grants to activities for nonpoint grams. Control of non-
assist States and sources. Point Sources is a 106
interstate agencies In program grant priority in
establishing and FY 1984.
maintaining adequate
measures (other then
the construction,
operation, and mainte-
nance of waste treat-
ment plants) for
prevention and control
206 of water pollution.
Areawide Designated agencies were a The principal nonpoint a Over 200 water quality
Planning to develop and operate a source control section management plans
continuing planning of the Clean Water completed and approved
process for areawide Act. by FY 1981.
waste treatment manage-
ment. Federal grants 9 Provided financial a Appropriation of 208
provided. assistance to State planning related funds
and areawide discontinued in FY
(Regional) agencies to 1980.
identify nonpoint
source problems and 0 Since 1980, State
develop control updates of plans and
strategies between implementation of
1974 and 1981. ongoing activities
have utilized State
funds, 205(j) funds
and 106 funds
respectively.
Nationwide To provide credible Urban runoff is consid- The 28 planning projects
Urban Runoff information upon which to ered to be a significant supported by NURP are
Program best policy decisions nonpoint source of pollu- essentially completed
regarding Federal, State. tion. The NURP program except for completion of
and local Involvement was an offshoot of the final reports. The final
with urban stormwater 208 nonpoint source NURP report Is expected
runoff and its control. program. Twenty-eight to be published in early
The principal focus of projects were selected 1984; a draft of this
the NURP program has been for the MURP program from report was published in
identification of urban 208 projects. September. 1983.
pollutant loadings from
various urban environ-
ments and evaluation of
the effectiveness of
alternative control
techniques.

TABLE 3.2 EPA'S MAJOR NONPOINT-SOURCE RELATED-PROGRAMS (CONTINUED)

MGM NAME BASIC PURPOSE RELATIONSHIP To NPS CONTROL CURRENT ACTIVITIES

WATER QUALITY
PLANNING AND
MANAGEMENT
(Continued)
205 (j) Provision of grants for water quality management The top five tasks funded
"ter quality management planning activities by 205(j) are:
Planning designed to funded under 205(J)
Provide water quality Include (but are not 0 water quality
Protection beyond that limited to): standards work
already achieved or
expected to be achieved a identification of the a monitoring
by the imposition of nature extent and
technology-based causes of water a groundwater
controls. Activities quality problems
funded under 205(J) (including nonpoint 0 total maximum daily
should focus on priority sources) load/waste load
inter bodies where allocations
designated uses art not a Identification of cost
being met. effective and locally a nonpoint source
acceptable nonpoint planning and
measures to meet and coordination
maintain water quality
standards

9 determination of the
relative contributions
to water quality of
point and nonpoint
sources.

Continuing 0 Provides the basic This program provides the Proposed rule changes
Planning authority of the CWA central integrating rill further integrate
Process (303) for establishment of mechanisms b which the the basic components of
State and interstate State establishes its the water quality
water quality priorities for both point management planning
standards. and nonpoint source process and will focus
controls. State attention on the
a Provides for an role of nonpoint sources
integrated framework in restoring or enhancing
for all water quality uses.
management planning
programs. Section 303
provisions require
that State agencies
update and integrate
all water quality
management plans and
establish priorities.

GREAT LAKES To demonstrate new Demonstration projects Section 108 (CWA) demon-
PROGRAM methods and techniques are directed toward stration programs have
and to develop prelimi- measures to control non- studied the cause/effect
nary plans for the point sources of pollu- relationship of various
elimination or control of tion, including urban nonpoint source problems
pollution within all or runoff and rural runoff. and have demonstrated the
any part of the water- effectiveness of a
sheds of the Great Lakes. variety of nonpoint
source control tech-
niques. Recent projects
have assisted local and
State governments in
technology transfer and
integrating USDA
resources to accelerate
adoption of tillage
Practices supportive of
Phosphorus reductions
called for in the U.S; Canada
water quality agreement.

TABLE 3.2 EPA'S MAJOR NONPOINT-SOURCE-RELATED PROGRAMS (CONTINUED)

PROGRAM NAM USIC PURPOSE RELATIONSHIP TO NPS CONTROL CURRENT ACTIVITIES

CLEAN LAKES Provision of grants to The Clean Lakes Program Funding is provided for
PROGRAM States for the identifi- is an Agency program use In completing exist-
c tion and classifica- which can be used to ing projects.
tion. according to cost-share with States
trophic conditions, of for implementation of
all publicly owned-fresh nonpoint source controls.
water lakes. and the A large portion of the
establishment and imple- program's attention has
mentation of methods to focused on nonpoint con-
control pollution sources trols; funds are provided
and restore the quality for a variety of water.
of such lakes. shed protection measures
as well as for direct
lake restoration.

CHESAPEAKE SAY To define the ecological The *Cosystan approach of EPA has completed its
PROGRAM conditions and water this program insured that Congressionally-mandated
quality management needs nonpoint as well as point activities
tiy The program
of the Ch speake Day. sources would be is curren In transi-
:
nd to ev:sluate the examined. Relative tion from research and
ffectiveness of loadings from point and analysis to State
alternative pollutant nonpoint sources were determination of the
controls on point and identified, and the Actions to be taken.
diffuse sources program's data base was
discharging to the designed to serve as a
Chesapeake drainage tool for targeting
systemo pollution controls for
flonpoint sources as well
as point discharges.

DILLON A demonstration project The Dillon Nonpoint Special Study
RESERVOIR designed to evaluate the Source Demonstration
cost-effectiveness of Project in Northwest
possible tradeoffs Colorado analyzed the
between point and economic and technical
nonpoint sources. viability of allowing
four municipal treatment
plants to forego
improvements in exchange
for implementation of
nonpoint source controls
in the Dillon Watershed,

assistance to the States in implementing nonpoint source controls. One
example is NURP, discussed above. This program investigated urban runoffz
problems and alternative control measures in 28 cities around the country.
Methodologies developed by NLRP will facilitate the transferability of NURP
findings to other areas without the need for intensive data gathering efforts.
A second exarnple is the Dillon Nonpoint Source Control Demonstration Project
discussed in more detail in the following *Case Examples." The purpose of
this project is to examine the efficacy of tradeoffs between point source and
nonpoint source controls. An ongoing effort of the Northwest. Colorado Council
of Governments, with the assistance of the Colorado Department of Health and
the U. S. E PA, this project estimated substantial cost savings from the
implementation of a pho-sphorus control strategy that relies on nonpoint source
controls rather than additional point source controls.

CASE EXAMPLES:
EPA-SUPPORTED NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL EFFORTS

DILLON RESERVOIR: 'AN EXPERIMENT IN TRADING POINT AND
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL MEASURES[113

Dillon Reservoir is located in the Rocky Mountains about 100 miles from
Denver. It is both ' a significant source of Denver's water supply and a
location of a variety of recreational activities. In recent years, burgeoning
vacation and permanent home development has led to water quality problems
related to excessive algal production. The source of nutrient enrichment has
been identified as phosphorus. Although phosphorus loadings are low in
comparison to normal standards, algal growth in the Lake is particularly
sensitive to the amount of phosphorus available.

The Dillon Reservoir project is an experimental project that analyzed nonpoint
source control as an option for reducing phosphorus loadings to the reservoir.
Four wastewater treatment plants have already achieved high levels of phos-
phorus reduction, and analysis showed that 72% of Dillon`s total phosphorus
load now comes from nonpoint sources. A tradeoff analysis was performed that
ompared the cost and removal efficiencies of additional wastewater treatment
plant controls versus control of nonpoint source runoff.
C

The tradeoff analysis found that imposition of nonpoint source controls for
phosphorus reduction, in place of additional point source controls, would pro-
vide considerable cost savings. Even if the effectiveness of nonpoint source
contrals is more limited than initially estimated, cost savings will remain
substantial. The Northern Colorado Council of Governments is now proposing
the use of point/nonpoint tradeoffs to meet new wasteload allocation require-
ments in nillon Reservoir.

EPA CLEAN LAKES PROGRAM:
LAKE RESTORATION IN COBBOSSEE WATERSHED[12]

The Cobbossee watershed drains 217 square miles in the State of Maine and
contains 28 lakes, three of which are eutrophic due to phosphorus loadings
from point and nonpoint sources. Despite the progress made from point source
controls, additional controls were deemed necessary to restore lake water
quality. The Clean Lakes Program (under Section 314 of the Clean Water Act)
provided the funds for restoration of these lakes, a project that included
alum treatment of one lake and implementation of agricultural nonpoint source
controls in the watershed of all thrpp lakes. Once considered one of the most
polluted lakes in the State of Maine, Annabessacook Lake has undergone a 45%
reduction in its total phosphorus level between 1975 and 1980. Significant
water clarity improvements have already been documented for Annabessacook
Lake, and further water quality improvements in all three lakes will continue
to be carefully monitored.

MPTER 3: NOTES rojec
1. 1982 Annual Report: Prairie Rose Rural Clean Water P ' t Shelby Coun@y
lowa, Lo - and State Coordinating Committies -of - Prairie Rose RCWP,
.November- 1982; Nonpoint Source Runoff: Information Transfer System, U.S.
EPA, Office of Water, July 1983, Chapter 4.
2. R. Neil Sampson, Farmland or Wasteland: A Time to Choose, Pennsylvania:
Rodale Press, 1981, p. 45.
3. Field Intervievis with selected EPA Region 8 staff in October 1983.

0,9
4. Nonpoint Source Runoff: Information Transfer System, U.S. EPA, Office
Water, July 1983.
5. Department of Interior Abandoned'Mine Land Policy, January 21, 1983; BNA
Environment Reporter- Mining, pp. 1421:0071-75.
6. National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Surface Mining of
Noncoal Minerals, Washington, D.C. 1979, pg. xxvi.
7. Nonpoint Source Runoff: Information Transfer System, U.S. EPA, Office of
water, July 179T.-
8. Comments on draft . Report to Congress: Nonpoint Source Pollution in the
U.S., submitted by Fed-e-ral Highway Administration.
9. Lynard Williams, et al., Urban Stormwater Management and Technolo2l--Case
Histories, U.S. EPA, Office of R search and Developnent, August 1980.
10. Nonpoint Source Runoff: Information Transfer Syste , U.S. EPA, Office of
Water, July 1983.
11. Industrial Economics, Incorporated, "Dillon Reservoir Case Study,"
September 1983.

12. Lake Restoration in Cobbossee Watershed, Office of Research and
Development, U.S. EPA, July 14W.

CMAPTER 4

Looking Ahead: Managing Nonpoint Sources

INTRODUCTION
In Chapter 1, we examined the nature and extent of nonpoint source problems
nationwide. Chapter 2 discussed these problems at greater length within five
source categories (agriculture, silviculture, mining, construction, and urban
runoff) and mentioned that many management practices exist which can reduce
nonpoint source pollutant runoff. A great number of these practices can be
implemented with minimal difficulty and cost. Chapter 3 discussed the fact
that many States now have programs underway that seek to address nonpoint
source pollution problems, and the various Federal programs that provide
technical assistance and support for nonpoint source programs at the State and
local levels.

Chapter 4 seeks to outline the important components of a State program
designed to manage nonpoint sources of pollution. As our technical under-
standing of nonpoint source pollution has grown, several gaps in our
management of nonpoint sources have been identified. In most cases, these
gaps are related to institutional and management issues rather than a lack of
understanding about the causes *of and solutions to the nonpoint source
problem. For this reason, Chapter 4 primarily addresses the institutional and
management considerations of a successful State nonpoint source control
program.

WATER QUALITY MUST BE SYSMMATICALLY
MANAGED AT THE STATE LEVEL

State management of nonpoint source control programs is the key to achieving
water quality objectives. As the central manager of the water quality
program, the State must establish where water quality problems exist from both
point and nonpoint source pollution, and determine which water quality
problems will receive its priority attention. It. is at the State level that
comprehensive strategies can be adopted, progress toward achievement of
objectives can be monitored, and necessary adjustments for a more effective
strategy can be made.

For several reasons, dynamic leadership and management is vital to forging an
effective nonpoint source control program. First, in many watersheds, imple-
menting the voluntarily adopted best management practices (BMPs) may have no
discernible impact on water quality unless the new approaches are targeted at
critical land parcels from 'which nonpoint source pollutants are coming.
Second, even when adoption of BMPs is within the means and economic interest
of the landowner, education and training may be necessary to provide both the
incentives and technical knowledge that will foster implementation of con-
trols. Finally, the adoption of control measures for certain nonpoint sources
will often remain beyond the economic interest of the landowner. In these
instances, the adoption of BMPs may require regulatory action, the use of more
powerful incentives, or both.

4-1

As has been discussed earlier, State programs that rely solely on voluntary
adoption of BMPs by landowners will not always achieve significant improve-
ments in water quality. Results' require carefully managed implementation of a
carefully designed program. Key elements of an effective State nonpoint
source program involve:
* A sound management approach, headed by a responsible agency
that can oversee implementation of the strategy(ies) and be
held accountable for results;
0 Careful targeting of nonpoint source controls, including
site-specific selection and application of the BMPs that
serve as these controls;

e Design of appropriate strategies to implement control
measures; and

9 Effective institutional arrangements for enforcement and
delivery of appropriate assistance.

KEY COMPONENTS OF SUCCESSFUL STATE PROGRAMS:
HIGH PAYOFF, CORRECT STRATEGY, AND COOPERATION
Nonpoint source control programs -are being implemented in many States
However, in many cases, these programs do not take all aspects of the problem
into account . More effective design of State strategies can go a long way
toward gaining control over nonpoint sources of pollution. The key components
of a successful State nonpoint source program are discussed briefly in the
sections that follow.

Noneoint Source Controls
Must Be Targeted -To-r-Iffirg-h Payoff
When developing a high-payoff program to combat pollution from nonpoint
sources, it is vital to aim the control strategy and supporting resources at
those watersheds--and the land areas within them--where pollutants are most
likely to be effectively and efficiently 'controlled. As was discussed in
Chapter 2, this targeting has four basic aspects:
1. Determine the priority wat- bodies within the State for
which the source of the exl_ing or potential water quality
problem is 'nonpoint.0
The principal consideration is whether an existing or
potential impairment of use is caused by nonpoint sources,
point sources, or natural background levels.
2. Of those priority water bodies identified in (1), decide
which ones should receive concentrated attention.

4-2

As was discussed in Chapter 2, issues of practicality
(e.g., the availability of control techniques, local
community interest or concern, and landowner cooperation)
as well as consideration of relative water quality values
within the State will affect the answer to this question.
3. Establish which land-use activities within the watershed
are responsible for delivering pollutants to the water
body.
4. Design a system of BMPs that will best control the delivery
of pollutants to the water bodies in the watershed.
The first two targeting mechanisms identify the water bodies toward which
efforts should be directed. The last two fine-tune the control approach,
maximizing its payoff by focusing on the most effective controls and on the
specific locations and activities at which they should be aimed. The outcome
of these determinations will lay a good foundation for the institutional
framework chosen for management of the program.

Two issues that have received inadequate attention in nonpoint source control
programs should be carefully considered in future planning. These issues are
(1) the need for nonpoint source water quality benchmarks and (2) ground water
contamination by nonpoint source activities. These are 'discussed in more
detail below.

Support Management with Water Quality Indicators
Targeted to Nonpoint Source Controls
Before judgments can be made about the severity of a particular nonpoint
source pollution problem, quantitative tools for assessing the problem must be
available. Traditionally, numerical criteria have been used as benchmarks
against which water quality problems can be managed and assessed. (Examples
of these criteria are 5 mg/l for dissolved -oxygen and 250 mg/1 for chlorides
and sulfates.) However, these tools are largely unsuited for managing
nonpoint sources, as they are designed to protect water quality from point
source impacts during low-flow conditions. Indicators should be established
that address water quality problems related to the high-flow conditions that
accompany nonpoint source pollution. This work calls for development of a
different perspective on quantification of water pollution, and involves both
complex and fundamental problems. For example, the flow conditions under
w+iich pollutants are mobilized from nonpoint sources are too variable to
support the development of single-parameter criteria.
Nevertheless, benchmarks are necessary, and where they are lacking, management
difficulties result. Identification of water quality problems cannot rely
solely on violations of specific pollutant levels in ambient water. EPA is
currently emphasizing the development of biological measures to support. use
designations and to encourage biological monitoring. Adoption of these
biological measures by State agencies should help address the difficulties in
nonpoint source problem identification.

4-3

In addition, analytical methodologies utilizing statistical approaches
developed in the course of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) improve
our ability to accurately estimate nonpoint source pollutant loadings that
result from intermittent and highly variable nonpoint source pollution events.

Consider Ground Water in Identifying Priorities
State programs should consider ground water when identifying priority nonpoint
source water quality problems. Most States traditionally have focused on the
quality of surface waters in their pollution abatement programs. Ground water
quality protection programs are in various stages of development in many
States. Ground water monitoring is generally not conducted unless a specific
problem has been ident.ified. Yet there is increasing evidence that ground
water can be--and, in many cases, is being--severely affected by land
management practices. A carefully targeted nonpoint source control program
should consider ground water as well as surface water problems. In some
instances, the priority water body may be an underground aquifer.

An Effective Program Hinges on States Selecting the Right Strategy

States have access to a variety of approaches that can be used to encourage
BMP implementation. These strategies include education, training, financial
incentives, and regulation, alone or in combination. The selection of
appropriate strategies depends upon the nature of the nonpoint source problem
being tackled, the BMPs available to address that problem, and a variety of
institutional considerations.

The choice of strategy often depends upon who receives the benefits from BMP
implementation and the time frame over which those benefits are realized. The
benefits of BMPs; may or may not be immediately apparent to landowners. Where
the BMPs used to control nonpoint sources have obvious short-term advantages
for the landowner being asked to implement them, training programs to teach
new management practices may constitute an appropriate and effective strategy.
For example, better management of fertilizer usage on farmlands is a BMP for
agricultural nutrient control that has short-term economic benefits to the
farmer.

In other instances, direct benefits to the landowner may be delayed, or do not
occur at all, and implementation of BMPs through education and training alone
may not be successful. In such cases, financial incentives may be warranted.
Financial or market incentives (e.g., low-interest loans, tax incentives, cost
sharing, and trading) can often bridge the incentive gap associated with &MP
implementation. In situations where benefits accrue not to the individual
landowner, but rather to society at large, cost sharing and cash payments may
be necessary. Risk-sharing, in the form of State equipment loan programs or
insurance programs, has potential for cost-effectively conrolling nonpoint
sources of pollution. Trading of pollution control requirements between point
and nonpoint sources is another approach which, in one instance, is proving to
be cost effective.[1]

A A

WISCONSIN STATE PROGRAM[2]

Nonpoint Source Water Ouality Problems
Are A Significant Concern

As a result of the implementation of long-standing control programs for point
sources in Wisconsin, the major remaining water quality problems in the State
are primarily due to nonpoint sources of pollution. Nonpoint sources are
suspected of impairing designated uses in nearly every lake and stream in the
southern two-thirds of the State. The affected area includes approximately
13n of the total 330 watersheds found in Wisconsin, including a large number
of trout and bass streams and deep, high quality lakes, many of Which are
valued as recreational and commercial resources. The major nonpoint source
problems are animal wastes, cropland erosion, woodland grazing by livestock,
construction activities, and urban runoff.

Intergovermental Cooperation and Clear
management Responsibility Are

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has overall responsibility
for administration of the nonpoint source control program and disburses cost-
sharing and local assistance funds for implementation of the progrm The
Wisconsin program relies heavily on a cooperative arrangement with Statewide
and local agricultural agencies. The water quality agency (the ONR) has clear
implernentation and management responsibility for the program. A State non-
point source coordinating committee plays a significant role in the selection
of priority watersheds. Membership on this committee includes representatives
of Federal, State, and local governments. With the help of the committee, the
DNR selects priority projects and develops detailed watershed implementation
plans.

Local implementation of watershed plans takes place through a Designated
Management Agency (DMA)--usually the local Land Conservation Committee. Soil
Conservation Service staff and Extension Agents ptovide additional technical
support and assistance to local farmers. Specifically, these staff provide
technical assistance to landowers for the design and implementation of BMPs..

Targeting Critical Areas Ensures a High Payoff

An underlying concept of the nonpoint source control program in Wisconsin is
the concentration of available financial and technical resources on critical
areas which will maximize the water quality benefits of the investment.
Priority projects of two types are targeted by the program--priority watershed
projects and local priority projects. Priority watershed projects are
hydrologic units in which nonpoint source problems occur over large areas (on
the order of 100,noO acres) and major portions of the watershed require imple-
mentation of BMPs. Those areas within the watershed that contain the most
significant sources are identified as priority management areas, and are the
only areas eligible for cost sharing. The DMA negotiates cost-sharing agree-
ments for EMP implementation that require implementation and installation J
A

within five years. Cost-sharing rates vary from 90 to 7n% per EMP, with no
limitation on maximum amounts except for animal waste storage facilities.
Supplemental county funds may raise the cost-sharing rate to as much as 90% on
certain practices. Currently there are 19 ongoing priority watershed
projects, and typical projects follow an 8- to 9-year progression from initial
selection to completion of BMP implementation.

Local priority projects are for smaller areas, typically less than 6,400
acres, and address nonpoint source problem areas that do not require a total
watershed approach. Many individual lakes and streams can be protected in
this way. Between 1979 and 1980, 27 local priority projects were funded, 24
of which are already complete. Local priority projects are selected by the
State from applications submitted by the DMA's. Cost-sharing agreements are
signed by project participants, and implementation generally occurs within 2
years.

Preliminary Results Show Program is Meeting Water Quality Goals
Nonpoint sources are a significant water quality problem in Wisconsin, and, in
response, the State has developed a very innovative program to address this
problem. A recent evaluation of the program concludes that Nthe priority
watershed project approach has proven to be a very effective way to integrate
land management and water resource programs-or3l This evaluation was based on
a preliminary assessment of the program's achievements in two priority
watersheds--the Elk and Hay River Priority Watershed Projects. Specifically,
preliminary results in the two watersheds show that approximately 70% of the
pollutants associated with barnyard runoff will be brought under control. In
addition, the evaluation reports that significant water quality improvements
have been achieved in the Way River Priority Watershed Project.r4l

Implementation Takes Time

Wisconsin's recent program evaluation clearly illustrates that it takes time
to implement nonpoint source controls and to evaluate their effects. It was
only possible for Wisconsin to do this preliminary evaluation 5 years after
the initiation of the two watershed projects.[5] A number of time-consuming
steps must be completed for all priority watershed projects. The key steps
include: project selection, an assessment of the watershed and development of
a detailed implementation plan, development of cost-sharing agreements with
landowners for BMPs, and, finMy, the installation of BMPs. Evaluation of
the Hay and Elk River Priority Watershed Projects is possible because these
projects are at the stage of having completed cost-sharing agreements with
landowners. Many of the landowers are, in fact, in the process of installing
BMPs.[6] Although implementation takes time, preliminary results in the Hay
and Elk River Priority Watersheds indicate that the control efforts will
result in some water quality Improvements.
no

A C

In instances where financial incentive programs, risk-sharing, and educational
activities are neither sufficient nor appropriate tools for BMP implementa-
tion, it may be necessary to construct a regulatory program. The efficacy of
a regulatory approach depends upon a variety of factors, including considera-
tions of social equity, the ability of the landowner to absorb costs, and the
enforcement capability of the State program. An example of a regulatory
program is represented by the attempts of State and local governments to
prevent construction erosion. When this regulation is applied consistently
through a permit program, all developers and builders are treated equally, and
costs are passed on to the consumer. However, when considering the applica-
tion of a regulatory strategy.for agricultural activities, policy-makers must
recognize that it is likely that the farmer both operates on a lower profit
margin and is less able to pass additional costs on to the consumer. In
addition, it is difficult to conceive of an appropriate enforcement mechanism.
More specific issues regarding the choice of strategy for particular nonpoint
source categories are discussed in the following sections.

Agriculture: Current Educational and Training Programs
Are Not Always Enough

While most State programs to control agricultural nonpoint source pollution
are largely voluntary in nature, it is clear that educational and voluntary
programs may not do the whole job. -A significant percentage (estimates are as
high as 50%) of the agriculture-related sediment pollution can be controlled
by conservation tillage wtich provides direct benefits to the farmer by
keeping topsoil on the land. Even adoption of that practice, however, may
require both technical assistance and a capital investment beyond the short-
term capability (or econamic ' interest) of the individual farmer. The more
costly BMPs that cannot demonstrate significant direct benefits to the
individual fanner (such as feedlot improvements and exclusion of livestock
from streambanks) may require a different approach--e.g., financial incentives
or regulation--in order to be adopted.

Conservation Tillage Practices: Apply with Care

Those BMPs known as uconservation tillage"' practices have been shown to be
highly effective in reducing erosion from farmland. However, they require
that farmers manage their land in a very careful manner. Many experts feel
that management training is necessary to implement conservation tillage
successfully. Several of them have raised questions as to whether or not
landowners initiating conservation tillage practices on their own may
unwittingly contribute to envirorwnental problems associated with pesticides
and nutrients.

There are specific reasons for applying conservation tillage strategies with
care. First, these practices are associated with increased amounts of herbi-
cide use. A verdict has not yet been reached on whether BMPs such as no-till
practices reduce runoff sufficiently to prevent increased herbicide loadings
in surface water as a result of the increased herbicide use. Second, because
conservation tillage techniques work by holding water (and soil) on the land,
experts question whether or not these practices will increase nitrate levels

in ground water. Because of these concerns, Wisconsin, for example, will not
encourage the use of no-till practices, although it does promote a variety of
other conservation tillage techniques. The extent of current and projecte@
shifts to conservation tillage practices warrants a monitoring of side effects
by State agencies.

Silviculture: A Greater Focus Is Needed
on the Small Woodlot Owner
Water quality problems caused by silvicultural practices of the small non-
industrial woodlot owner are not adequately addressed by many State programs.
The strongest nonpoint source regulatory and quasi-regulatory programs exist
in the Northwest, where industrial forestry landholdings are largest. The
Southeast, where much of the growth in forestry production is taking place,
relies on voluntary programs. This area is characterized by small landowners
for which BMP implementation may reduce the immediate cash return on a
harvest. Although there are a few silvicultural-related incentive programs
r
(e.g., cost sharing) that address the financial needs of the small landowner,
they are small and do not assist many landowners.
Training and educati onal programs for landowners and contract loggers have
been demonstrated to increase adoption of BMPs. Additional research and
monitoring on the productivity benefits and actual net costs of BMP applica-
tion are required to provide foresters with additional information in the
effort to promote BMP adoption.

Mining: Correction of Water Pollution from Abandoned
Mines Remains a Difficult Control Issue
Some of the most severe sedimentation and toxic n@ nint source water quality
problems are caused by abandoned surface and deep 'I and metal mines.* The
leaching of acids, heavy metals, and radioactive m@i_ ",al from abandoned mines
can severely degrade water quality and, in some zances, render affected
water bodies biologically dead. It is general': less costly to address
problems associated with sediment and erosion f-e-.4n surface sites than to
combat acid mine drainage from deep mines or surface mines.
Proper site planning of operating mi-es is the key to preventing serious new
water quality problems from minina activities. The cleanup of abandoned mines
is often made more technically difficult by poorly designed mining operations
in the past. Cleanup is complicated because former owners may be difficult to
identify and liability hard to establish. In general, State strategies for
addressing nonpoint source problems from abandoned mines --auld involve
targeting the greatest opportunities for abatement of water r ity problems,
establishing authority to seek legal remedies against for-, owners, and
providing technical assistance and money for cleanuo.

*Operating mines are considered to be a point source of pollution and are
controlled through NPOES permits. An analysis of water quality problems
associated with operating mines is beyond the scope of tnis report.

A 0

Construction: Public Building Projects
May Present a Different Challenge
Implementation of construction BMPs is rarely considered to be in the economic
interest of an individual builder. Therefore, there is widespread agreement
that a regulatory approach to the control of nonpoint source pollutants from
private construction sites might be necessary.

Sixteen States and the District of Columbia have sediment control laws
covering a variety of construction activities. The remaining States--
including some of the fastest growing ones--do not directly address erosion
(and resulting sedimentation) from this source. Many of the existing State
laws have exemptions for various construction activities. State and local
engineering guidelines may fill gaps in State laws, but the degree to which
they do so is varied.

Public construction projects may remain a source of concern even where sedi-
ment and erosion control laws are in place. Highways are the largest single
rurce of construction erosion. The Federal Highway Administration monitors
implementation of BMPs in Federally assisted highway construction, and State
and local governments monitor projects constructed solely with State and local
funds. Requirements for BMP application are typically made part of highway
construction contracts. The effectiveness of this management approach varies
from State to State and largely depends on State enforcement mechanisms. The
fact remains that highway construction is still a significant source of
sedimentation in some areas. Local road building is often unregulated, and can
cause significant localized problems in the absence of Statewide sediment
control laws.

Urban Runoff: Old and New Urban Areas
Require Different Treatment

Urban runoff programs are generally considered to be a municipal responsi-
bility. The efficacy of programs in older, highly developed sections of
cities is limited by the expense and difficulty of implementing effective BMPs
in these areas. Indeed, in most,parts of the country, the expense and diffi-
culty of implementing controls in built-up areas will always preclude effec-
tive "structural" actions. Certain techniques such as street sweeping or leaf
pickup are applied in many such areas, but have limited effectiveness.
Developing urban areas offer the greatest opportunities for addressing urban
runoff problems through land use regulation and development planning. The
great expanses of impermeable surface that promote runoff can be reduced by
appropriate land use and stormwater management planning. Retention and/or
detention basins can be incorporated into site preparation at relatively
modest cost to reduce both runoff volumes and pollutant loadings. Land use
and development planning is a local prerogative, however, and implementation
of programs to reduce runoff in developing areas varies widely. Where
developing areas address urban runoff in their land use and site planning at
present, primary emphasis is upon preventing drainage and associated flood.ing
problems. However, future approaches to urban runoff control can and should
integrate both drainage and water quality objectives.

4-9

Cooperation Between the Water Quality Agency
and the Operating Agency is Important
Regardless of the basic nature of the nonpoint source control program, effec-
tive implementation and enforcement of that program will require significant
commitments by the States. Education and training of individual landowners
and operators is an important component of regulatory programs as well as
programs relying on voluntary implementation of BMPs. Because certain
existing State and Federal programs regularly provide technical assistance and
support to individual landowners and operators who may be the generators of
nonpoint source pollutants, there is widespread agreement that involvement of
Federal and State soil conservation, agricultural, and forestry programs is
key to implementing 'nonpoint source control strategies.
As we have discussed, the differing missions of these agencies can lead to a
lack of focus on water quality objectives. Effective management of nonpoint
sources will require cooperative efforts between the water quality agency and
the operating agency that routinely reaches the landowner. Respective roles
in this cooperative arrangement might.include:
* Gubernatorial designation of the lead agency responsible for
implementation of a nonpoint source control program.
e State passage of the necessary legislative authority to
implement the program.
@ State water quality agency identification of priority water
bodies needing nonpoint source controls.
* An inventory of land management activities likely to be a
source of nonpoint pollutants conducted by the appropriate
operating agency (e.g., USDA's Soil Conservation S 'ervice or
the local soil and water conservation district).
* A watershed-based analysis and identification of the
priority land management practices that must be controlled
to manage nonpoint source pollutants performed by the water
quality resource agency.
* Technical assistance at the field level provided by staff
of the operating agency to assist in the identification,
selection, and implementation of appropriate BMPs to address
the nonpoint source problems.
9 Education provided by the operating agency w0iich is directed
toward critical landowners and the general public to
increase awareness of the need for and the benefits of
controlling nonpoint source pollution.

Finally, cooperati- .- arrangements with operating agencies can maximize the
utility of the lir ted amounts of technical and financial assistance these
agencies provide tc landowners: where possible, BMPs that satisfy the goals
of the operating agency can be dovetailed with those that would promote water

4-10

CASE EXAMPLE:
COOPERATIVE EFFORT TO REDUCE PHOSPHORUS LOADINGS TO LAKE ERIE [71

THE PROBLEM

Lake Erie has received a great deal of attention since the late 196ns because
of problems with accelerated eutrophication of its waters. As of the early
1970s, the primary cause of accelerated eutrophication was determined to be
excessive phosphorus loadings. After additional study, the Western Basin of
Lake Erie was identified as a significant source of these phosphorus loadinqs.

A COOPERATIVE EFFORT TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM

The Tri-State Tillage Project is a cooperative effort to control the agricul-
tural nonpoint sources which contribute to eutrophication of Lake Erie, and is
being undertaken by a variety of agencies at the Federal. State, and local
levels. The project is being conducted for the U.S. EPA Great Lakes National
Program Office by numerous soil and water conservation districts, and is being
coordinated through the National Association of Conservation.Districts.
@oil and weter conservation districts in Indiana and Michigan and two counties
in Ohio have received grants directly from EPA under the Great Lakes (Section
0A) Program. The Ohio nepartment of Natural Resources (Division of Soil and
Water Districts) has received a grant for the remainder of the Ohio districts
and has entered into subcontracts with them for implementing projects within
their jurisdictions. A total of 31 districts have received funds for conser-
vation tillage projects.

The primary objective of these projects is to provide interested farmers with
no-till and ridge-till planting equipment for use on ln- to 20-acre demon-
stration plots on their farms. Technical assistance is also provided to these
farmers by the Soil Conservation Service and Extension Service. In addition,
cost-sharing incentives are available to farmers in some counties through the
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. The goal of this effort
is to have 20 to 4n farms with 3-year demonstration' projects using the no-til I
or ridge-till system in each participating district.

WSULTS TO DATE

After little over one year of implementation, a total of 902 demonstration
plots covering 11.379 acres in 18 counties were established. Preliminary data
indicate that yields on no-till plots were better than or equivalent to yields
on plots employing conventional tillage. As a result of the Tri-State Tillage
Project, the adoption of conservation tillage practices will be accelerated
and, consequently, phosphorus loadings to Lake Erie will be reduced.

quality through nonpoint source pollution control. For example, the U si-
Department of Agriculture's,.Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) w il
provide up to $3,500 in matching funds for the implementation of conservation
practices. If these funds are targeted to priority water quality problems
ffective nonpoint source control,
they can encourage the adoption of BMPs for e S
and result in "high-payoff" water quality improvements.

FEDERAL NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAMS PROVIDE
IMPORTANT ASSISTANCE TO STATE PROGRAMS
Several Federal agencies address the nonpoint source pollution problem because
they (1) have complementary programs in place, (2) have developed effective
outreach mechansims, (3) manage activities on Federal lands, (4) have under-
taken mandates which require that they address the problem, or (5) have
technical expertise available. EPA, for examplr@ charged with the responsi-
bility for protecting water quality, provides ovl:-,Yiew of State agencies that
are developing programs to ameliorate nonpoint source pollution problems.
Other Federal agencies have extensive outreach capabilities. For example,
USDA has an extremely effective network of services and programs at the local
level. These services reach out to local farmers and landowners with tech-
nical and financial assistance programs that can provide the necessary support
for implementing nonpoint source control strategies.

Federal Programs Reflect Agency Priorities
The ability of different Federal agencies to support State nonpoint source
control efforts depends upon the nature of their primary mission. Programs
run by USDA and other Federal agencies with nonpoint- source- related programs
often do not address water quality issues as the top prio 'rity problems. As is
appropriate to its own mandate, USDA stresses erosion control and maintenance
of land productivity. Some brief sketches of Federal programs that address
the nonpoint source pollution problem in some way follow.
* USDA's National Conservation Program (which provides overall
direction for USDA's soil conservation activities) makes
water quality a component of erosion control. However, the.
agricultural priorities of erosion control and maintenance
of productivity, rather than water quality, receive the
major emphasis.

9 The Abandoned Mines Fund operated by the Office of Surface
Mining does not accord water quality a high priority for
targeting reclamation efforts. Few pro" --cts targeted for
cleanup efforts receive attention primar -1y due to their
water quality impacts.
[n implementing a Memorandum of Understanding with EPA, the
Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administra-
tion delegates the responsibility for managing highway-
generated sediment to the States. The FHA, however, is
responsible for monitoring State activities, and grants are
generally conditioned on the implementation of nonpoint
source controls.

A In

The U.S. Forest Service@ (USDA) provides technical assistance
and support to State forestry agencies through its State and
Private Forestry Program. In addition, the Forest Service
is itself a manager of vast amounts of commercial forest
land. Forest Service efforts are not normally directed
toward water quality as a top priority.

EPA is Developing a Coherent Policy on
Nonpoint Source Pollution

EPA's nonpoint source control programs have, in the past, focused on providing
guidance and financial assistance to States and areawide (regiortal) agencies
as they developed the necessary plans to manage nonpoint sources. After
completion of the initial water quality management planning process in 1981,
the States began to implement nonpoint source management programs. Current
EPA efforts focus on information transfer between and among States and
localities.

Recent reports from EPA Regions and the States, however, *have identified
nonpoint sources as a significant water quality concern. EPA has identified
nonpoint source issues as one of its priorities, and is in the process of
developing a nonpoint source policy to guide the States' efforts. Among other
things, this policy as proposed would direct that higher priority be given to
use of resources from State water quality program grants (Section 106 of the
Clean Water Act) and from Section 205(j) grants for State nonpoint source
programs. In addition, the policy encourages States to identify those
priority watersheds requiring nonpoint source controls and to consider
implementing management programs in those areas.

CONCLUSION

Great strides have been made during the past decade by States and local
governments in both identifying @nonpoint source problems and determining what
effective strategies should be implemented. A wide range of projects in
virtually every part of the country has demonstrated the effectiveness of
management practices to control nonpoint source pollution from such varied
sources as croplands, rangelands, agricultural lands, surface mines, forest
lands, construction sites, and urban areas. Experience over the past dqade
has also shown that improvements in water quality can be achieved by targeting
the key land areas and activities that are most responsible for nonpoint-
source-related water quality degradation.
State management of nonpoint source control programs is the key to achieving
water quality objectives. As the central manager of the water quality
program, the State must identify nonpoint-source-related problems, establish
priorities, target key problem areas, and designate the agency to manage
corrective and preventive actions, which often must be applied in a very site-
specific manner. At the State level, compreh :[email protected] strategies can be adopted,
progress toward achievement of objectives can be accurately monitored, and
necessary adjustments for a more effective strategy and program can be made.

A 1 -5

While voluntary implementation of management practices has achieved and can
achieve even more significant water quality improvements, it is clear that
certain problems will require more innovative, management approachet.
Accountability, flexibility, and leadership are all vital elements. The
effective State program will involve a responsible State agency held account
able for results, which has a sound management approach and is capable o;
leading a cooperative effort by a variety of State and local governmental
entities . Effective control of non po i nt- source- caused water quality problems
will not happen easily. nynamic and creative leadership is required at the
State level to forge effective nonpoint source programs.
While mos. of the planning, analysis, and implementation must take place at
the Stat@_' ?vel, development of appropriate control measures will require a
coordinat_-_@ effort on the part of all levels of governmertt- -Federal , State,
and local--working together in a mutually supportive partnership. Federal
agencies play a variety of roles. They (1) provide invaluable technical
assistance and other incentives, (2) support research and demonstration
capability for the development and dissemination of needed methodologies and
innovative management approaches, and (3) support important networks of
services and programs at the local level. This assistance must continue to be
focused and made available at the local level by field representatives of the
parent agencies involved in nonpoint-source research and control. Local water
quality management agencies and decision-makers provide the necessary detailed
knowledge of what are, by nature, highly site-specific problems and solutions.
The key role, however, is played by the States, managing available resources
and bringing them to bear upon identified problems in a way that ensures
maximum water quality improvement for each dollar spent.

4-14

CHAPTER 4: NOTES

1 Dillon Reservoir.Case Study, Draft, U.S. EPA, Office of Policy, Planning,
and Evaluation. Washington, D.C., 1983.

2. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, The Wisconsin Nonpoint Source
Program: A Report to the Governor and-the Legislature, March 1982.
3. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, .1984-85 Budgetary Request
Program Report, December 30, 1983.

4. Ibid.

5. Phone interviews with Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources' Nonpoint
Source Section staff, January 1984.

6. Ibid.

7. Lake Erie Conservation Tillage Demonstrations, U.S. EPA; Great Lakes
National Program UTTice in cooperati-oh-Q-TiM the National Association of
Conservation Districts; Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Control: Needs
and Costs; Draft, U.S. EPA, office of Water Program Operations-,-Va-f-er
PI anning-Di vision, September 2, 1983.

4-15

I
I , -
I
I
I ..
I
APPENDIX A
I
Examples of Best Management Practices
I for Selected Nonpoint Sources
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

TABLE A.1 EXAMPLES OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR AGRICULTURE*

AGRICULTURAL
PROBLEM BWP COSTS AND COST SAVINGS EFFECTIVENESS
1. Sediment From Cropland conservation Tillage-- compared with conventional Reduces soil erosion
retains crop residues on tillage, conservation (60-99%)(b.c.d). runoff (up
the field Surface through tillage total costs are on to 61%). and loss of
pratices ranging from a average of 131 per acre. ra) Nutrient$ from the Nil.
variety of reduced tillage However. on some sails.
approaches to no-tillage. Yields are reduced and risk The Conservation Tillage
Of lower yields Is News reports the following
Increased. results front certain
experimental plots Covered
with corn residue In low:

* Reduction of runoff--72%
0 Soil loss reduction--90%
9 ReductIon of herbicide
loss--99%
Reduction of nutrient
loss--76%.

Contour-strip cropping--is Implementation costs Reduces water erosion
farming gently sloping average $29 per acre (a) 40-60%(e) Reduces wind
(2-8%) cropland along the Operating and maintenance erosion 40-50%.(e)
contour. alternating strips costs range from $3-5 per
of sod or close-growing acre Per year.(e) costs
grosses and legumes with may be greater to the
few crops. former if a lower profit
crop Is planted to
accomodate terracing.
Terracing--is a combination Installation costs are Can be very effective in
of embankments and channels high, an average of $73 per reducing erosion--50-90%
across a slope of up to acre(e). and maintenance [b]; reduces Suspended
12% , flattening and costs per acre are S16 solids 30-50%.[d] Runoff
shortening the length of yearly.(b) Every ton of toter is also reduced.
the slope and thereby erosion reduction Costs
reducing the volume of the approximately $7.00.( )
runoff by retaining it
longer for Infiltration.

Grassed waterways--are Construction costs are $1-2 Reduces sediment 5-40%
natural or constructed per foot or $72 per acre. phosphorus 5-40%
vegetated depressions which maintence costs are $1-14 Pesticides 5-40% (a).
carry surface runoff while Per acre par year (b,f)
preventing the formation of Costs are nominal for the
gullies. expected yearly average of
1 ton of pollutant
reduction per acre.(f)

2. Excessive Pesticide Integrated Pest Cost% vary widely according Moderate to high reductions
Loadings Into Water Management--combines to practices chosen. ranging from 20-40% in
traditional post control Pollutant loadings,
methods (such as crop depending upon practices
rotation) with sophisti- used.[9]
cated measures such as
insect; traps and analyses
of an insect's life cycle
to determine how best to
interrupt it.

3. Water Quality Livestock exclusion-- Implementation costs Pollutant reductions for
Degradation from Animal ensures the inaccessibility average $1.10 per foot of both practices are half a
Wastes of highly erodible areas. fencing (a) Average total ton per acre per year.[f]
such as streams. by fencing cost is $4.00 for each ton Reduces wind erosion
these areas off. of pollutant reduced.[f] 10-20%.[e] Reduces toter
erosion 20-30%.[e] Reduces
total Phosphorus and
Suspended Solids 50-90%.(d]

*This table includes only a simple of the available to that might be used. The costs and effectiveness columns are
very brief and are only meant to be Indicative of relative values. The information In this table was compiled from a
number of StudieS. but does not represent a comprehensive summary.

A-1

TABLE A.1 EXAMPLES OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR AGRICULTURE (CONTINUED)

AGRICULTURAL
PROBLEM Imp COSTS AND SAVINGS EFFECTIVENESS
3. Water Quality Feedlot waste management Control of feedlot runoff Manure storage And feedlot
Degradation from systems --including costs approximately $7500 runoff control art very
Animal Wastes diversions, ponds. and yearly for every so effective at reducing
(continued) scraping that control animals,[e,h] Manure runoff And total phosphorus
liquid and Solid animal storage is expensive. in (75-100%).(d]
waste. particularly runoff average of $12,884 for each
from the feedlot. storage facility [e]

4. Salinity from Irrigated Irrigation scheduling--in- Implementation costs are Reduces An estimated 2 tons
Croplands wolves proper timing of and minimal. if any. and Of pollutants per acre per
careful attention to the Operation Costs range from Year.(f) Can reduce:
volume of water applied to $3-15 per acre per
the cropland. year.[e,f] The monetary * total dissolved Solids/
benefits (reduced costs and salinity- 5-20%
Increased yields) Can 0 nitrate-- 5-20%
amount to S30 per acre per * sediment- 0-10%
year, generating a met 0 phosphorus-- 0-10%
benefit of at least $15 per 9 pesticides-- 0-10%.[e)
acre per Year[e] For
every ton Of pollutant
reduction. this IMP costs
$7.50 yearly.[e]

5. Excessive Nutrient Techniques to reduce See #1, Sediment. Sao 01. Sediment.
Loadings sediment runoff may also
reduce nutrient leadings,.
Nutrient use Costs are minimal and my Moderate reductions in
managament--assures the result In Savings to Nutrient losses from the
retention of nutrients in farmers through lower sail.
the Soils and minimizes fertilizer expenses as a
losses through the-use of result of lower fertilizer
sail testing to guard applications and losses.
against over-fertilization.
proper timing of nutrient
Application. and
Incorporation of
fertilizers into the soil.

General Sources for Table A.1:
1. Pierre Crosson. Conservation Tillage and Conventional Tillage- A Comparative Assessment. Soil Conservation Society of
America. 1981.
2. Joseph A. Krivak. lost Management Practices 'to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution From Agriculture.' Journal of Sail
and Water Conservation, July/August 1978. pp. 161-164.
3. OCA Potential Problem Area 11 Water Quality: Problem Statement and Objective Determination, USDA, July 1979, pp.

4. Control of Water Pollution from Cropland, Vol. 1. Agricultural research Service, USDA. Office of research and
Development. U.S. EPA. 1976.

Sources of Cast Information:
a. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. data from Conservation Reporting And Evaluation System (CRES).
1983.

b. Best Management for Agricultural Nonpoint Source Control: Sediment. North Carolina Extension Service, U.S.
EPA. USDA. August 1987, pp 30-32.

c. Lee A. Christensen and Patricia E. Morris, 'A Comparison of Tillage Systems for Reducing Soll Erosion and Water
Pollution.' Agriculture Economic report Number 494.p. fv.

d. Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement in the Great Lakes Basin: An Overview of Post-PLUARG Developments. Water Quality
Board of the International Joint Coqmmiss, August 1983. Table 3.1.
e. Non-point Source Pollution Control Strategy I Colorado, Draft Report.
f. Implementation Planning for Control Agricultural Pollution: Institutional and Financial Issues and Approaches
(DRAFT), U.S. EPA Office of Water, 1987 , pp. IV-B, 10,11 14
g. Unpublished data from U.S. EPA Water Planning Division.
h. Lower Black River Priority Watershed Plan. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. USDA. p. 460.

TABLE A.2 EXAMPLES OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR SILVICULTURE*

SAMPLE MANAGEMENT
PROBLEM PRACTICE COSTS BENEFITS

1. Sedimentation Harvest site pre-plan- Low. High. Planning
con.struction ning. Time should be road layout can
and stream spent laying out roads reduce road miles
crossinas and loading areas on an and decrease con-
enlarged segment of a struction mainte-
topographic map, and nance costs; better
then marking them on the layout can reduce
ground prior to arrival erosion.
of crews and equipment.
Roads should follow
contours, avoid steep
slopes, and be slightly
outsloped to disperse
drainage. Sensitive
soils at risk of severe
erosion or landslides
should be identified and
avoided.

2. Concentration Waterbars and turnouts Low to medium Medium.
of water on may be constructed to (S40-1no).ral
roads reduce volume and
velocity of water on
roads. Planninq to
.minimize use can reduce
rutting. Closing and
reseeding of roads is
also recommended.
3. Site prepara- Where applicable, Low ($1201 Medium to high.
tion too chopping and burning acre)Jal Soil conservation
intensive, is preTerred over Althoug@' gives higher wood
causing shearing and windrowing. site looks yields.
erosion Disking and root raking 11messier,"
should be avoided. the cost
is less.

*This table includes only a sample of the available BMPs that might be used. The
costs and benefits columns are very brief and are only meant to be indicative of
relative values. The information in this table was compiled from a couple of
studies, but does not represent a comprehensive summary.

TABLE A.2 EXAMPLES OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR SILVICULTURE (CONTINUED.1

SAMPLE MA NAGEMENT
PROBLEM PRACTICE COSTS BENEFITS

4. Sediment Use bridges and culverts Bridges, Medium.
generated over all live streams; high
at stream cross streams only at (si,noa -
crossings right angles; keep $1 million);
equipmentment out of culverts,
streams. -Be sure low (sinn-
to maintain culverts 15n). Cal
prior to wet weather
periods to p--,ent
clogging and @.houts.

5. Thermal pollu- Streamside MF ament Medium to High. Keeps
tion; organic Zones (SM s . -eave a high. Loss stream tempera-
matter strip with eno4gh trees of timber tures down.
and brush to provide left.in Practice helps
adequate shading. zone, but keep equipment
Width depends on practice out of streams.
stream size and angle is reported
of adjacent slope. to be
This zone can also be "catching
an effective barrier to on" as a
keep slash and debris stream pre-
out of stream, although servation
sediment may run technique.
through.

6. Groundcover (a) nirectional felling, .1150/acre. Medium.
and soil dis- to place logs nearer ral
turbance from to skid trails and
log removal reduce turning while
dragging.

(b) Aerial skidding High to Medium to
m-e-Mods, various very high. high.
Te-cMi-ques that Tractor
eliminate the use of skidding is
tractors, and commonly used,
partially or wholly except for top
lift logs off the grade timber
ground for transport on very steep
to loadina site. slopes.

TABLE A.2 EXAMPLES OF MAMAGEMENT PRACTIICES FOR SILVICULTURE- (CO@Tlli4UE@)

SAMPLE MANAGEMENT
PROBLEM PRACTICE COSTS BENEFITS

6. Groundcover and (c) Harvest Method: Cost per 1,000
soil disturbance Board Feet:
from log removal
(continued) Tractor S 15 - 25
High Lead S 20 - 35
Sky Line S 4n - 55
Balloon S 6n - so
Helicopter $120 -140.rb]

(Will vary according
to vol ume of timber
per acre)

7. Chemical runoff Mark streams prior to None. Not
spraying; leave strips Ouantified.
on both sides of stream.
Avoid wet weather periods.
Follow label directions.
Use no more than necessary
or economically justifi-
able.

General Sources for Table A.2:
1. "Forest. Manaaement for Water nuality," U.S. Forest Service/EPA, August .19PI
(Workbook to accompany the National Forestry Water Ouality Training Program, Part
B, Units 1-9 slide tape program).

2. A Review of Current 1<nowledge and Research on the Impact of Alternative Forest
Management Practices on Receiving-Wate , National Council of the Paper IndusUr-y
Tor Air and Stream improvemeRt, technical Bulletin No. 322, May 1979, p. 38.

Sources of Cost Information:

a.-Interviews, U.S. Forest Service.

b. National Water n uality Goals Cannot Be Obtained Without More Attention to
Pollution fr-F-TiMuse or "Nonpoint' @ources, GAO, December 1977, p. 43.

A-5

TABLE A. 3 EXAMPLES OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND
RECLAMATION TECHNIQUES FOR MINING

PROBLEM EXAMPLE MANAGEMENT PRACTICE COSTS BENEFITS

1. Leaching of (a) Replacement of hazardous High High
acid and metals materials in mine passages
from tailings and sealing of mine.
and spoil.
(b) ReRrading and burial with High Variable;
so!] that will supporf-v-egeta- leaching may
tion. continue

(d) Placement on impervious High High
surface with clay or concrete
cap.

(e) Compounding of hazardous High High
7 o
substances wi h asphalt
prevent 57-567nact with water
and air.

(f) Diversion of water from the Not Not
mining area aff-Tr-dmex posed Available* Available
acid-producing materials

(g) Placement of crushed lime- Not Not
stone barriers in strea-m-7-eTs-, Available Available
addition of lime, so-da-15-sW-,or
other neutralizing agents to
Mr-eams; construction of a
treatment facility To neutralize
mine water and remove
precipitants.

2. Erosion of (a) Reve2etation. May be Low Variable
tailings and unteasible due to levels of
spoil piles. acid or toxic materials, lack
of rainfall, or excessively
fine-grained tailings.

(b) Collection of runoff in High High
set ling ponds.

*Not available from cited sources.

A-6

TABLE A.3 EXAMPLES OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND
RECLAMATION TECHNIOUES FOR MINING (CONTINUED)

PROBLEM EXAMPLE MANAGEMENT PRACTICE COSTS BENEFITS

3. Acid drain- (a) Plugging of shafts and Very High Variable;
age from under- drain tunnels to-co-n-t-F67 generally
ground mines. the entrance of air into the thought to
mine and inhibit the to be un-
oxid-ation of sulfide workable
materials. except in
special
situations.

(b) Use of wells to divert Very High Not
water from overlying aq-u'lTer Available
around mine to an underlying
one.

(c) Stripping coal from Not Not
underground mines- d Available Available
,@Z:Siandar
surface mining thods, then
reclaiming the area as a
surT-ac-e mine.

4. Leaching of Mixing with limestone High Medium
uranium from or other source of-aTkalinity
tailings. to render the metal insoluble.

5. Leaching of Reaction with hypochlorite. Not Reported
cyanide residues Available Effective
from gold tail-
ings.

Sources:

1. Processes, Procedures and Methods to Control Pollution from Mining Acti-
vities. U.5. EPA, Office of Air aR Water Programs, water quality
1ro-n-p-o-i'lit Source Control Division, October 1973.

2. Tennessee Valley Authority, Coal Mining and Water Quality, September 1980.

3. Interviews with personnel within Bureau of Mines an Bureau of Land
Management.

A-7

TABLE A.4 EXAMPLES OF MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES FOR CONSTRUCTION

BMP % EFFECTIVENESS FOR COSTS
SEDIMENT CONTROL

Structural:

1. retention/detention Ao-Inn% (wet) S300-2,0011
basins <6n% (dry) for individual
on-site basins
[a,b,cl
2. diversion or filter 40-6n% variable ra,c,dj
structures; energy
dissipators

3. roadside swales so-8n% medium to high
($2,000-4,000/
acre served)

Nonstructural:

4. good housekeeping low (higher for other low [d,el
practices pollutants)

5. site planning variable low to medium
ra,bl
6. mulches; ground 50-95% $200-1,500/acre
covers served ra,c,dj

Sources of Cost Information:

a. Nonpoint Source Runoff: Information Transfer System, EPAj Office of
Water, July 1983.

b. Will-iam G. Lynard, et al., Ur ban Stormwater Management and
Technol221--Case Histories, EPA, OfTTc_eof Research and Development,
August 1980.

C. Midwest Research Institute, Cost and Effectiveness of Control of
Pollution From Selected Nonpoint Sources, Prepared for the National
Commission on Water Duality, NOVOnDer 1975.

d. Toups Corporation, Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Strategy for
Colorado, Draft , Prepared Tor State of Colorado, Section 208
ro-or-d-77aing Unit, 1977.

e. Nonpoint Source Control Guidance Construction Activities, EPA, Office
of Water Planning and Standards, 1976.

A-8

TABLE A.5 EXAMPLES OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR URBAN AREAS

BMP % EFFECTIVENESS COSTS
OF POLLUTANT CONTROLS

Structural:

1. retention 80-100% (wet) low to high
basins ($100-1,500/acre
served) Ca,b,c,d]
2. in-lin'e storage 60-90% medium to. high
($1,000+/acre
served) [b,c]
3. in-line screens variable (sediment only; medium to high [e]
depends on screen size)

4. porous pavement variable (depends on pore high (where old
size) pavement must be
replaced) [b]

Nonstructural:

5. streetsweeping 10-55% (sediment) $1,000+/acre
0-20% (other pollutants) served (labor
intensive) Cc]
6. good housekeeping low (sediment); low [f]
practices medium (other pollutants)
with effective enforcement

7. land-use planning; variable low to medium
site planning [b,c,f]

Sources of Cost Information:
a. Final Report of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program,_Final Draft,
Vol. 1, EPA, Water Planning Division, December 1983.
b. Nonpoint Source Runoff: Information Transfer Syste , EPA, Office of
Va-ter, July 1983.

C. William G. Lynard, et al., Urban Stormwater Management and
Technologj--Case Histories, EPA, Office of Research a-n-d Uevelopm
W-Ugust 1980.

d. Unpublished studies, EPA, Water Planning Division.

e. Urban Stormwater Management and Technologies: Update and Users'
Guide, EPA, Office of Research and Development, September 1977.
f. Toups Corporation, Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Strategy for
Colorado, Draft, Prepared for State of Colorado, Section 208
t-oordinating Unit, 1977.

FIGURE A.1 COST EFFECTIVENESS OF URBAN BMPS
IN ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

..........................................................
UNDERORAINS 12.908

..............
............... ....................................................
PERCOLATION 5,482
ELAS I N

....................... @;j
SWALES/ 3,998
PERCOLATION

SWALES 3,966

.................
............................. .................. .....................
DIVERSION/ 40@
PERCOLATION 3.754

VACULM 11292
SWEEPING

.................. . .......
.....................
SEDINENTATION 1,033

.................
.........................................................
............... .................
CYPRESS 237
STAND

................

FABRIC --------
BAGS 75
r
AEMOYAL 2a 4,0 6'0 I'D Ica
EFFICIENCY

029q T 0 TA L TOTAL P"-71 SUSpENOEC
KDOO
B005 WROGEN PWOSPHORUS SOLIDS
................... ...... --------
.....................................................................................

............................................................ ...

Source: William G. Lynard, et. al Urban Stormwater Management and Technoloqy--
Case Histories, EPA, Office of Research and Development, August 1980.

A I n

I
I - -
I m
I
I
I
I APPENDIX 6
I Federal and State Programs
to Control Nonpoint Source Pollutants
I
I
I
I .
I
I
I
I
I
I
i

TABLE B.1 STATE PROGRAMS AODRESSING AGRICULTURAL NONPOINT SOURCES*

Statutory
Yearly EPA- Po 11 ut 101,
Nature of Program Amounts of Approved Abatement
Cost-Share Principal state Agency 208 Authority for
Voluntary regulatory Cost-Shart "Mies responsible for Program Program Agriculture?

AL Department of FAviromental 0
planagement
At (planned) Department of Natural resources
Department Of Land. Water
AZ 0 Commission

Sail & water conservation
AR 0 Commission

state water Resources
CA 0 Control Board
Ca 0 Sail QMservatial surd 41

1*10 Council of Sail and
CT 0 0 sx.060 - $60.000 water conservation 0 0

Department Of Natural
resources aid Environmental
Control. Department of
M 0 Agriculture 0 0

Soll and Water
Fl. 0 Conservation Districts 0 0

Envirwon"tal Protection Division.
Department of Natural Resources 0 0

IS Soil and Water
conservation Districts 0 0

Soil Conservation Canissiam
1913 and Soil I Water Conservation
ID SI million Districts

Department Of
I"I Agriculture. and Soil 6
S.5 Million Water Conservation Districts 41 0

Sall And water Conservation
11111 Committee. Qopart@t of
IN 0 0 3.4 million Natural Resources

Department of Sail Conservation,
IU3 Department of Water. Air. and
1A 0 0 18.5 Million waste Hanmement

19A3 Department of Health and Authority
Its 0 0 SIAS million Fnv iroment 0 Unclear

Division of Conservation of
Department of Natural Resources
ICY 0 aid Environmental Protection 0

Water Pollution Division No
LA 9 Department of Natural Resources 0 Authority

Bureau of Water quality Control.
nepartment of Environmental
0 0 Protection 0

Department of Agriculture.
000artment Of Health. state
1983 Sail Conservation Committle.
NO 0 0 0 IS Million Office of Environmental Programs 0 0

Department of Environmental
IPA 0 Ouslity Engineering 0 0

Sail Conservation Districts.
Department of Natural Qesources 0 0

1910
P4 0 40 sI.S million Sail 6 Water Conservation Board 0 0

Som of titese prograns are designed for controlling soil erosion; others are designed for water quality.

R-1

TABLE B.1 STATE PROGRAMS ADDRESSING AGRICULTURAL NONPOINT SOURCES
(CONTINUED)

Statutory
T#&Fly EPA- Pol I ut ton
Nature of "row amounts of Approved Ao&t apen t
colt-Shartit Principal State A4*ncy 208 Authority for
Voluntary Regulatory Cost-Share Manias Responsible for Program Program Agricultvre?

Sail and water
0 Conservation Commission

Soil and Water Conservation
M Program. Department of
140 40 $4 million Natural Resources

1993
RE 0 $1.4 million Natural Resources Commission 0

AIV Soil Conservation Districts

w 0 state conservation Committee 0 0

l"2
NJ $50 million** State Soil Conservation cdwittot 0 0

Sail and water Division of No
Natural Resources 0 Authority

000arva"t of Enviroo-
MY mental Conservation

im Sail aid water
01C $1.5 million comservation committee

M
No t4w.000 Department of Health

ftivisio" of Sail & water
1980 Conservation Districts,
am 1230,000 "apartment of Natural nesewcas

11113
OK $10,000 Wake" Conservation Commission 0 0

OR 49 Dow"w"t of Agriculture

ftoarownt of frivirom-
PA 0 mental Resources 0

NO
Rt 0 State camsmation cowittee Authority

Department of Water am
1"0 Natural Resources, Soil
so $400.000 Conservation Districts 411

Division of Water Mamiigamwmt.
Tx 0 Deitarawt of Public Health 0 0

Texas State Soil and Water
T1 Consenatiom A"rd 0

UT Sail camsmation Districts 0

Agency of Environ-
Yr md"tal conservation 0

1983 Sail am water conwrtr4tion
V4 SSOO.000 commissid" 0 0

WA Soil Conservation Districts 0 0

VV rwaartowt of Natural Resourc" 0 0

1"3-84
wt 0 S4.1 pillion 11004rawt Of Natural Resources

WY
0 0 1123,500 State Conservation Commission 0

Pit 0 Environmental O"Ifty bard 9

Department of.Conservation 04
Yl 0 Cultural Affairs 0

-%.j bond program far wrehaso of pr"w agricultural lands. a portion of which may be used for votor duality purposes.
Sources: lmolawontation Status of State 208 Agricultural Progron (Draft). U.S. IPA Water Planning Division.
September 1980. Appendiz A.
L"puslished data from the National Association of Conseftation Districts and U.S. EPA.

TABLE B.2 USDA PROGRAMS AFFECTING AGRICULTURAL NONPOINT SOURCES

conservation Date Typo of
Agency Program Enacted Program Program Description
Agricultural Agricultural 1936 Cost-shore Assists farmers in shifting cropland from soil-depleting
Stabilization A Conservation crops to soil-conserving crops, and in Implementing $oil-
Conservation Program (ACP) building or conserving practices. Special ACP funds are
directed at achieving toter quality goals.

1978 cost-share Model Implementation Program was a demonstration program for
Implementation and maintenance of IMP% to solve agricultural
water quality problems.
Emergency 1978 Cost-shere Aids farmers in rehabilitating cropland damaged by floods or
Conservation droughts.
Program
Experimental 1974 Cost-share Obtains Implementation and maintenance of VIPs on forms to
Rural Clean control nonpoint water pillution.
Water Program
(RCWP)
Agricultural Agricultural 1935 Research Performs and provides research an soil and water conservation
Research and water quality.
Service (ARS)
Farmers New Watershed Loans 1962 Loans Deals with participants in Public Law 566 small watershed
Administration projects protecting. developing. And using the land and toter
(FMHA) resources from these watershed%.

Sail and Water 1961 Loans Assists farmers in carrying out projects for doil
Loans to conservation and Improvement. water development and
Individuals conservation, and pollution abatement.

Irrigation. 1972 Loans Aids organized associations of farmers in building or reno-
Drainage vating toter systems that serve several forms.
and Other

Extension Land and 1978 Extention Provides relevant. comprehensive education in each state
Service (ES) Water Education to farmers on subjects important to agriculture. such as
Conservation soil and water conservation.

Sail Technical 1935 Technicl Provides technical assistance to farmers, conservation
conservation Assistance Assistance districts. and urban areas regarding BMPs for &oil and
Service (SCS) water conservation.
Resource 1962 Technical Assists multi-county areas with plans for land conservation
Conservation Assistance development to benefit rural communities, such as water
and Development quality management, controlling agricultural pollution,
disposing of solid wastes, erg developing wildlife habitat
and recreational areas.

watershed 1954 Technical Provides technical assistance and funds to local
Protection Assistance/ organizations for protecting. developing. and utilizing mail
and Flood Project watersheds, particularly for purposes of flood prevention,
Protection Act Grants agricultutral-water management. municipal &Ad industrial toter
(Public Law 566) supply. and recreation. fish and wildlife resource
development and protection. In recent years, increasing
emphasis figs been placed on land treatment for water quality
protection purposes.

Sources:

1. R. Neil Sampson. Farmland or Wasteland: A Time to Choose (Rodole Press; Emmaus, Pennsylvania, 1981. pp. 381-385.

2. Sail and Water Resources Conservation Act: 1980 Appraisal, Review Draft 1. USDA, pp. 8-16. 8-18.

3. Catalogue of federal Domestic Assistance, Executive Office of the President. Office of Management and budget, 1983.

TABLE 8.3 'SUMMARY OF STATE SILVICULTURAL WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAmS

Add-On Cost of
Quasi- Cost No Aqprox. State Program EMP ComplIamce
state Reg ul atory Reg ul atory voluntary Sharing Program Cost ( S ) ( FY'82 (1/1000 bd-ft.)

AL $ 75.000

AK 500,000

CA 3,900,000 55.00

CT 80.000

FL 25.000

GA 27,500

10 ".000 1.50

LA .0-

MN 125.000

NC .0-

Q-A

TABLE B-3 SUMMARY OF STATE SILVICULTURAL WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
(CONTINUED)

Add-On Cost of
Quasi- Cost No Approx,State Program OMP Compliance
State Regulatory Regulatory, Voluntary Sharing Program Cost ($) (FY*82) (S/1000 bd-ft.)

OK 38.000

OR 1,350.0DO 1.50

Sc .0-

SD 0

TN 0 2.SOO

V7 -O_

VA 40.000

WA 1.400.0DO 10.00

wv 31,00

Totals S 6 29 2 10

Source: Summary of Silvicultural Nonpoint Source Control Programs-1982. National Council of the Paper
industry for Air and Stream Improvemen . peC141 RCport No. aj-01, January 1983.

B-5

Agency and Priority Given to
Program Nature of Program Primary Purpose WQ* Objectives

USDA-Forest Auction sales of Provision of timber for Under current law
Service, public timber national needs. and rn!3s, WQ BMPS
Timber Sales resources. are - --.orporated
into each contract.
Cuts are limited in
size to minimize
local disturbance.
USDA-Forest Cost sharing up Tree planting and Water quality not a
Service, to 65%. timber stand improve- priority, but some
Forestry ment for private projects reported to
Tn'centives Zero funding nonindustrial forest have addressed WQ
Program (rip) FY84 lands of 1,000 acres problems. (In
1C.F.D.A. No. or less. general, reforesta-
10.064) tion does improve
water qual ity.)
USDA-Agricul- Cost sharing To control erosion and Primarily addresses
tural Stabiliza- up to 75%. sedimentation, encourage soil erosion on
tion and Conser- voluntary compliance farms, as well as
vation Service FY84 funding with Federal and State water qual ity. Some
(ASCS), $56 million requirements to solve funds reported to go
Agricultural (est). Average point and nonpoint to silviculture.
Lonservation' Payment: $764. source pollution, Applications pro-
Program (CFDA achieve priorities in cessed by local ASCS
To. 10-.063) the National Environ- committee at county
mental Pol icy Act, im- level.
prove water quality,
encourage- energy conser-
vation measures, and
assure a continued supply
of necessary food and
fiber. The program is
directed toward the
solution of critical
soil, water, energy,
and pol.lution abate-
ment problems on farms
and ranches.
USDA-ASCS, Rural Three- to ten- To develop and test Directly addresses
Clean Water year cost-sharing methods for assisting WQ, but forestry not
Program (RCWP) contracts up to agricultural landowners a priority. Appli-
(C.F.D.A. No. 75%. FY84 funding to reduce nonpoint cations reviewed by
10.068) $3 million (est). source pollution. Pro- local ASCS
Max. project jects involve committee.
size: $50,000. installation of EMP's.

*Water Qual ity
"It is reported that budget cuts in some national forests have resulted in lack
of implementation of WO practices. (Source: Field interview, EPA Region 8).

B-6

TABLE B.5 FEDERAL PROGRAMS AFFECTING MINING NONPOINT SOURCES

PRIORITY GIVEN
TO WATER QUALITY
AGENCY AND PROGRAM NATURE OF PROGRAM PRIMARY PURPOSE MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES

Interior-Office of Surface (a) Project grants to state IQ assist coal States Water Quality protection
Mining. Regulation of for program development. in developing and on- is a primary aspect of
Surface Coal Mining administration and en- forcing surface mine SHCRA. a long with re-
Surface Effects of under- forcement. regulation programs. clamation, soil conserva-
ground Mining; (C.F.D.A. test short: First year as authorized under tion. Ott.
No. 15, 250) 80%, Second year Ant. 94CRA.
thereafter Sol. water quality management
requirements contained in
Fuming: FY'84 (Ott) SMICRA Section 515 require
$37,600,000. all surface mine runoff
to be Collected and
(b) Small Operator treated.
Assistance Program
(SOAP). payments to
laboratories to con-
duct hydrologic Sur-
veys for small operators.

Fuming:FY'83
$7,000,000.

Interior Office of Project grants. funded by To protect the public Abetment of water
Surface Mining (094). tax on coal production. and correct the pollution from abandoned
Abandoned Mine Land environmental damage Mines is third priority.
Reclamation (AMLR Funding: FY'84 (est) caused by coal and after projects to protect
Program (C.F.D.A $208,400,000 noncoal mining occur- Public health. safety
No. 15,252) ring prior to 8-3-77. am welfare.
Primarily at abandoned
Coal Sites. At the lop priority goes to
request of a State extra* safety hazards.
governor. noncoal such as mine fires.
sites say be addressed open pits and shafts.
(intended for those Subsidence problems. etc.
states without a long
history of problem
coal mines.)

USDA - Soil Conservation Cost sharing up to 80% Land Stabilization; Water quality aspects tow
Service, Rural Abandoned Project grants for re- erosion and sediment to be addressed along with
Mine Program (RAMP) clamation of sites under control-, development safety hazards or land
(C.F.U.A. NO. 10.410) 320 acres. of Soil. water (ex- restoration. Typical
cluding stream projects include filling
Funding: FY' (est) channelization), wood- of pit&. removal of
$2,782,000 land, wildlife, and hazardous structures
recreation resources; regrading and reclamation
and the agricultural of acid wastes, etc.
productivity of such
lands.

Interior - Bureau of Land Proposed A-10 year research To determine the extent Undetermined.
Management Inventory project find magnitude of the
Materials
of Hazardous hazardous materials
problem On BLM lands,
including "Omer of
working mines, the
degree of hazards
posed, and level of
effort needed for re-
clamation.

Interior - H.S. Geological Federal assistance to States To obtain physical Efforts ore directed to
Survey, Water Resources in the form of directed data for program both quality and quantity
Investigations (C.F.D,A. water resources research planning for resource of surface am ground-
No. 15 ) projects. 50% State development and water%. (Reports cover
patching share required. management. (62 area all major ester quality
reports are planned. issues for region
Funding: FY'84 (est) of which about 20 studied.)
$47,113,000 have been published.)
(salaries and expenses)

B-7

TABLE 8.6 STATUS OF EFFECTIVE LEGISLATION
FOR SEDIMENT CONTROL IN CONSTRUCTION

Introduced to Introduced to
State Low Drafted Legislature Enacted state Law Drafted Legislature Enacted

AL WE

AZ NH

AR 0 NJ 0 0 0

CA NM

CO NY 0 0

CT 40 0 K 0 0 9

BE 0 0 0 NO 0 0

FL am 0 0 0

GA 0 0 OK

10 0 0 0 OR 0 9

ID 0 0 PA 0 0 9

ft 0 0 0 RI 9

IN SC 0 0

IA 0 0 0 so 0 0 0

KS 0 7W

KY TX

LA 0 0 (1) UT

of VT

0 0 VA 0 0 0

14A WA 0

MI 0 9 0 WV 0 0

HN 40 9 W1 0 0

0 0 VY

(1) Governor's executive order assigns sediment control responsibility to conservation districts.

Sources: Nonpoint Source Runoff: Information Transfer System, EPA, Water Planning Divisio . July 1983.

Unpublished information from EPA.

B-8

I
I , .
I ir,
I
I
I
I

APPENDIX C
I
I Glossary
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

GLOSSARY

Ac id Mine Drainage A principal water pollutant from mining opera-
tions; acid water forms when water comes into
contact with exposed mined wastes and ores.

Adsorption The attachment of the molecules of a liquid or
gaseous substance to the surface of a solid.

Algae Primitive nonvascular plants, having one or many
cells, usually aquatic and capable of fixing
carbon dioxide by photosynthesis.

Aquatic Plants or animal life living in, growing in, or
adapted to water.

Aquifer An underground bed or layer of earth, gravel, or
porous stone that contains water.

Available Nutrient That portion of any element or compound (such as
phosphorus and nitrogen) in the soil that can be
readily absorbed and assimilated by growing
plants.

Bacteria Microscopic organisms, generally free of pigment,
which occur as single cells, chains, filaments,
well-oriented groups, or amorphous masses.
Best Management Practices Methods, measures, or practices to prevent or re-
(BMPs) duce water pollution, including, but not limited
to, structural and nonstructural controls and
operation and maintenance procedures. BMPs may
be applied before, during, or after pollution-
producing activities to reduce or eliminate the
introduction of pollutants into water bodies.

Bioaccumulation The process by which the concentration of a given
chemical in body tissues increases exponentially
through the food chain, as contaminated
organisms are consumed by others, and the
chemical becomes incorporated into the tissues of
each consumer.

Buffer Strip Strips of grass or other erosion- res i stant vege-
tation between a waterway and an area of more
intensive land use.

Conservation Tillage Farming nractices, such as reduced plowing, that
(Reduced Tillage) cause less disruption of the land surface than
does conventional tillage. Common practices
include plow planting, double-disking, chise
plowing, and strip tillage.
Contour Farming Conducting field operations--such as plowing
planting, cultivating, and harvesting--across the
slope and contour of hilly land.

Contour Strip Cropping Farming operations performed on the contour with
crops planted in narrow strips, alternating
between row crops and close-growing forage crops.

Conventional Tillage Standard method of preparing a seedbed by com-
pletely inverting the soil and incorporating all
residue with a moldboard plow. This is done to
the land more than once in order to prepare a
smooth, fine surface.

Detention Basin A structural BMP consisting of ponds constructed
to temporarily store water so that settlement of
some sediment may occur before water moves else-
where.

Dissolved Oxygen (00) The amount of free oxygen dissolved in water and
readily available to aquatic organisms. It is
usually expressed in milligrams per liter or as
the percent of saturation. Low concentrations
can result from the decomposition of excessive
amounts of organic matter., a process that
consumes 00 and therefore limits aquatic life.

Diversion Structures Channels such as dikes, ditches, and terraces
that route sediment-laden water at a nonerosive
velocity into basins or other safe disposal
areas.

Erosion The wearing away of a land surface by wind or
water. Erosion occurs naturally from weathering
or runoff but can be intensified by land clearing
practices. Sheet erosion occurs when water runs
off in unbroken layers over the soil surface;
rill erosion occurs when water runs off in
incisions less than 12 inches deep through the
soil; and gully erosion results in trenches
deeper than 12 inches in the soil.

Eutrophication The addition of nutrients to a body of water.
This occurs naturally as part of the normal aging
process of many lakes; however, the process may
be accelerated by human activities that result in
excessive nutrient inputs that promote abundant
growth o algae and other aquatic plants. As
these die and decompose, much of the dissolved
oxygen in the water is consumed, making the lake
uninhabitable for the previous diversity of fish
and other aquatic life.

Fecal Bacteria Intestinal bacteria that are associated with
human and animal wastes; they are indicator
organisms used to detect the presence of possible
pathogens in water. They may enter water bodies
from such nonpoint sources as manure runoff from
fields, animal grazing near streambanks, or
leaching from septic tanks.
Field Cropping Farming practice that involves planting fields
with grain plants (such as hay, wheat, or oats)
that do not require seeded rows.

Filter Structures Structu*ral BMPs, such as stone and gravel piles,
sandbags, and straw bales, that are used to slow
water velocities in order to reduce erosion.
Grassed Waterway A natural or constructed waterway (usually broad
and shallow, covered with erosion-resistant
grass) that is used to conduct surface water from
cropland.

Groundwater The supply of fresh water that forms a natural
reservoir under the earth's surface.
Groundwater Recharge The natural renewal of ground water supplies by
infiltration through the soil of rain or other
precipitation.
Heavy Metals Metallic elements such as mercury, chromium,
cadmium, arsenic, and lead, with high molecular
weights. At low concentrations, they can damage
organisms; heavy metals tend to bioaccumulate in
the food chain.

Infiltration The downward entry of water into the soil.
In-Line Screens A structural BMP in which screens are placed
within pipes and sewers in order to filter the
particulate matter from the water.

c-3

In-Line Storage A structural 8MP that utilizes up-sized sewers
and/or gates to control water flow directions swo
that runoff water can be stored within the sewer
system to allow pollutants to settle out before
it is gradually released.

Inorganic Composed of chemical compounds not containing
carbon.

Integrated Pest Management Combining the best of all useful techniques--
biological, chemical, cultural,. physical, and
mechanical --into a custom-made pest control
system.

Irrigation Efficiency The amount of water stored in the crop root zone
compared to the amount of irrigation water
applied to the soil.

Irrigation Return Flow Surface and subsurface water that leaves the
field following the application of irrigation
water.

Leaching The removal of nutrients, chemicals, or contami-
nants from the soil by water movement through the
soil profile.

Livestock Exclusion The removal or isolation of animals from stream-
banks or other highly erodible areas near water
bodies.

Nitrogen A chemical element, commonly used in fertilizer
as a nutrient, which is also a component of
animal wastes; as one of the major nutrients
required for plant growth, it can promote algal
blooms that cause water body eutrophication if it
runs off or leaches out of the surface soil .
Available nitrogen is a form which immediately
usable for plant growth (NO 3 or NH

Nonpoint Source A diffuse source of water pollution that does not
discharge through a pipe, such as agricultural or
urban runoff, runoff from construction
activities, etc.

Nonstructural BMPs Practices which do not involve construction in
order to be effective, such as site-planning,
good housekeeping, and mulches and ground covers.

C-4

No-Till (Zero Till) A -soil management practice of planting a crop,
without prior seedbed preparation, into an
existing sod, cover crop, or crop residues;
planting is done by punching a hole or slot in
the soil in which to place the seed. Subsequent
tillage operations are also eliminated, and
chemical weed control is generally used.

Nutrients Elements or substances such as nitrogen and
phosphorus that are necessary for plant growth.
In water bodies, large amounts promote excessive
growth of aquatic plants and cause eutrophication
of the water body.

Organic Materials Carbon-containing substances in plant and animal
matter. High concentrations of these are often
found in industrial and municipal wastewaters and
in surface runoff.

Pathogens Disease-causing organisms.
Percolation Downward flow or filterinq of water through pores
or spaces in rock or soil .

Pesticide Any substance used to control pests ranging from
rats, weeds, and insects to algae and f ung i .
Some pesticides bioaccumulate in the food chain
and can contaminate the environment.

Phosphorus One of the primary nutrients required for the
qrowth of aquatic plants and algae. Phosphorus
is often the "limiting" nutrient for the growth
of these plants. (See Nitrogen)

Potassium A component of fertilizer that can contribute to
water body eutrophication from excessive nutrient
loadings. See Nitrogen.

Retention Basin A structural BMP that is an area with no outlet
device and that stores runoff water in order to
allow pollutants to settle out.
Revegetation The planting of ground cover on hi ghly erod.ible
and marginal lands as a means of preventing
further erosion.

Row Cropping Farming practice that plows the land in straight
rows, thus enhancing the erodibility of the land
and promoting leaching.
Runoff Water from rain, snow melt, or irrigation that
flows over the ground surface and returns to
streams. It can collect pollutants from air or
land and carry them to the receiving waters.

C-5

Sal inity The concentration of salt in water.

Sediment Solid material (such as silt, sand, or organic
matter) that has been moved from its site of
origin and has settled to the bottom of a
watercourse or water body. Excessive amounts of
sediment can clog a watercourse and interfere
with navigation, fish migration and spawning,
etc. If disturbed, sediment can be resuspended
in the water column, where it contributes to
turbidity.

Silviculture Management of forest land for timber. Some
silvicultural practices, such as clear-cutting,
may contribute to water pollution by enhancing
the erodibility of the land.

Soil Stabilization A nonstructural BMP that involves the use of
mulches and ground covers, and effectively
decreases the amount of sediment in runoff and
reduces precipitation velocity (thus reducing the
volume of runoff).

Structural BMPs Devices constructed for pollution control
purposes, such as detention/retention basins,
diversion structures, or filter structures.

Suspended Sol ids Solids floating in the water column whic-h
generally impart a cloudy appearance (turbidity)
to water, sewage, or other liquids. Suspended
solids are measured as the amount of material
retained on standard filters.

"Tu The rate of soil loss that will still allow for
soil productivity; a standard by which soil
erosion control rather*than water quality control
is measured.

Tailings Residue of raw materials or waste separated out
during the processing of mineral ores.

Terraces Embankments built along the contour of agricul-
tural land to hold or divert runoff and sediment,
thus reducing erosion.
Tillage Plowing, seedbed preparation, cultiv.at@-
practices.

Topography The physical features of a land surface area,
including relative elevat ions and the position of
natural and man-made features.

Turb id ity Haziness or cloudiness in water due to suspended
silt or organic matter.

Watershed The area of land that drains into a particular
watercourse or water body.

Sources:

1. Common Environmental Terms, U.S. EPA, Office of Public Affairs, May 1982.

2. Water Oualit Field Guide, USDA Soil Conservation Service, September
1983.

3. Anne Weinberg et. al., "Nonpoint Source Pollution: Land Use and Water
Ouality," University of Wisconsin--Extension Service, Publication No.
G3025, 1979, pp. 45-48.

4. Federal Reoister, Vol. 44, No. 101, May 23, 1979, p. 30033.

C-7

[nvir,3nrrwmtgl projection
Agoncy
Washington DC 20400

Off, coal Busirom
Penalty for Privet@ Use $300 CY)
IN

@-@00