88 174p. Books (010) · reader step-by-step through the process that states must follow to comply...

ED 382 485

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTION

REPORT NOPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

SE 056 355

Hansen, Nancy Richardson; And OthersControlling Nonpoint-Source Water Pollution: ACitizen's Handbook.Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C.; NationalAudubon Society, New York, N.Y.ISBN-0-89164-105-X88

174p.The Conservation Foundation, 1250 Twenty-Fourth St.,N.W., Washington, DC 20037.Books (010) Guides Non-Classroom Use (055)

MF01/PC07 Plus Postage.Activism; Adult Education; *Citizen Participation;Community Education; Environmental Education;Environmental Standards; *Federal Legislation;Planning; Program Development; ProgramImplementation; *State Regulation; *Water Pollution;*Water Quality*Nonpoint Source Pollution

Citizens can play an important role in helping theirstates develop pollution contrcl programs and spurring effectiveefforts to deal with nonpoint-source pollution. This guide takes thereader step-by-step through the process that states must follow tocomply with water quality legislation relevant to nonpoint-sourcepollution. Part I provides background on nonpoint-source pollution.Parts II, III, and IV describe in detail the nonpoint-planningprocess. Chapter titles are: (1) "Introduction: An Opportunity for

Citizen Action"; (2) "A Different Kind of Pollution"; (3)

" Identifying Water-Quality Problems"; (4) "Identifying Sources ofNonpoint Pollution"; (5) "Selecting Best Management Practices"; (6)

"Establishing Institutional Mechanisms"; (7) "Drawing Up anImplementation Schedule"; and (7) "Monitoring Implementation andEnforcement." References are provided at the end of each chapter.

Appendices contain: (1) a listing of offices of the EnvironmentalProtection Agency and states within each EPA region; (2) state water

pollution control agencies; (3) nonpoint-source provisions in the

Water Quality Act of 1987; (4) report of the Conference Committee,U.S. House of Representatives pertaining to management of nonpointsources of pollution; (5) state water resources research institutes;(6) major nonpoint-source pollution categories and subcategories; and(7) agricultural chemicals for which EPA has recommended waterquality criteria. (LZ)

Reproductions suppiied by EDRS are the best that can be made *

from the original document.***********************************************************************

00

C\1CO

ControllingNonpoint-Source

Water PollutionU.S. OSPARTAIVIT Or COUCATIOW

Once co Eaucetionel Rees/urn end Onprowenoot

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

:nis document hell bed"' reoeoduced es'Calved from the 041101. CH 0,94N:soon

coot:tong aO Mrnor coonoos neve been made to wsprowe

reOrOduction puelrty

Points of new or own:misstated In true docu-ment do not necessarily reseeeent °Shoaloem pos000n a oocy

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

ir4\-\,ee itA.- 111 Ir

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC).-

Nancy Richardson Hansen

Hope M. Babcock

Edwin H. Clark II

The Conservation Foundation CZI)Washington, D.C. dr

National Audubon SocietyNew York, N.Y.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

2

ControllingNonpoint-Source

Water Pollution.

The Conservation FoundationBoard of Directors

Russell E. TrainChairman

Melvin B. LaneChairman of theExecutive Committee

William K. ReillyPresident

Oscar Arias SanchezAnne T. BassThornton F. BradshawJohn A. BrossBetsy J. CoombsJoseph F. Cullman 3rdRaymond F. DasmannGaylord DonnelleyJohn T. Dorrance, Jr.Anne G. EarhartGilbert M. GrosvenorLena GuerreroAllison Coates HalabyLawrence S. HuntingtonFrances C. JamesThomas H. KeanWilliam T. Lake

Richard D. LammHunter LewisCruz A. MatosH. Eugene Mc BrayerScott McVayGilman OrdwayJulie PackardPeter H. RavenWilliam D. RuckelshausGerald E. RuppLloyd G. SchermerAnne P. Sidamon-EristoffHelen B. SpauldingChristine G. StevensCatherine H. SweeneyGeorge H. TaberHenry W. TaftNelson S. TalbottWilliam C. TurnerSue Erpf Van de BovenkampWilliam H. WhyteSusan M. WilliamsDouglas F. Williamson, Jr.Edward 0. WilsonRosemary M. Young

The Conservation Foundation is a nonprofit research and com-munications organization dedicated to encouraging human con-duct to sustain and enrich life on earth. Since its founding in1948, it has attempted to provide intellectual leadership in thecause. of wise management of the earth's resources. The Conser-vation Foundation is affiliated with World Wildlife Fund.

National Audubon SocietyBoard of Directors

Leigh J. AltadonnaWilma AndersonHoward P. BrokawJanice E. BurchB. Bartram CadburyEvelyn T. ChaceJean Wallace DouglasNoel Lee DunnHelen EngleCharles G. EvansClifton C. Garvin, Jr.Robert Y. GrantJanet C. GreenJay S. HammondJames G. Hanes IIIPatricia HeidenreichMarian Sulzberger HeiskellBruce S. Howard

Stuart S. Janney IIIJames K KesslerAnthony A. LaphamHarriet M. MarbleDonal C. O'Brien, Jr.Sally Engelhard PingreeBayard D. ReaNathaniel P. ReedScott. W. ReedLeah G. SchadRobert Ford SchumannJoseph Rider SiphronPeter W. StrohJames Garth TeerMilton W. WellerJohn Carroll WhitakerJoseph H WilliamsHarold E. Woodsum, Jr.

ControllingNonpoint-SourceWater P llution

A Citizen's Handbook

Nancy Richardson Hansen

Hope M. Babcock

Edwin H. Clark II

The Conservation Foundation 113,Washington, D.C.

National Audubon SocietyNew York, N.Y.

Cortrolling Nonpoint-Source Water Pollution:A Citizen's Handbook

© 1988 by The Conservation Foundation and National Audubon Society.All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced without thepermission of The Conservation Foundation and National AudubonSociety.

Cover design by Pamela S. CubberlyPrinted by Wickersham Printing Company, Inc., Lancaster, Pennsylvania

The Conservation Foundation1250 Twenty-Fourth Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20037

National Audubon Society950 Third AvenueNew York, N.Y. 10022

Our thanks to the Virginia Environmental Endowment formaking the publication of this handbook possible.

Contents

Foreword by William K. Reilly and Peter A. A. Berle

Introduction: An Opportunity for Citizen Action

air

1

Just An Ordinary Rainstorm 1

An Opportunity for Citizen Action 2

How Can You Help? 4

How to Use This Handbook 6

An Overview 6

The Assessment Report 7

The Management Program 7

Implementation 7

Further Reading 8

TipsDeveloping Support for Nonpoint-Source Pollution Control 9

Taking Advantage of Formal and Informal Opportunitiesfor Participation 11

Working with the Media 13

PART I: UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEM

Chapter 1: A Different Kind of Pollution

15

17

What Are the Most Common Sources of Nonpoint Pollution? 19

Agriculture 19

Silviculture 20

Mining 20

Construction/Urban Runoff 21

Other Sources 22

On-site Septic Systems 22

ix

3

x CONTROLLING NONPOINT-SOURCE WATER POLLUTION

Landfills and Hazardous Waste Sites 22Air Pollution 23

Further Reading 23

PART II: PREPARING THE ASSESSMENT REPORT

Chapter 2: Identifying Water-Quality Problems

25

27

Step One: Which Water Bodies Are Polluted? 28State Reports on Water Quality 28Fieldwork 31

Special Studies 32Other Sources of Information 33Unprocessed Water-Quality Measurement Data 34

Step Two: Are Nonpoint Sources the Culprit? 34Step Three: Is the Nonpoint Pollution Serious Enough to

Exceed Water-quality Standards or to Not Meet the Goalsand Requirements of the Clean Water Act? 37

What Is a Water-Quality Standard? 37Comparing Monitoring Data with Water-Quality Standards 38

In Conclusion 40Further Reading 41

TipsStart with a Single Phone Call 42Free and Paid Expertise 43How to Call Government Agencies 44

Chapter 3: Identifying Sources of Nonpoint Pollution 45

How Can You Determine What Kinds of Nonpoint Activities AreCausing the Problem? 47

How Are Workable Subcategories Defined? 48Agriculture 51Mining 52Silviculture 52Construction and Urban Nonpoint Sources 52

Further Reading 53

PART ID: DEVELOPING A MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 55

Chapter 4: Selecting Best Management Practices (BMPs) 57

Good Questions to Ask 57Are the Proposed BMPs Effective Enough? 58

0

CONTENTS xi

How Much Are the Responsible Parties Likely to ResistAdopting the Recommended BMPs? 58

How Likely Is the BMP to be Properly Maintained Once

It Is Adopted? 59What Other Environmental Costs or Benefits May Result

from the Adoption of a BMP? 60

Examples of BMPs 60

Agriculture 60

Silviculture 62

Mining 63

Construction and Urban Sources 64

Further Reading 65

TipPush for Effective Control Strategies 69

Chapter 5: Establishing Institutional Mechanisms 71

Existing ProgramsAgricultureSilvicultureMiningConstruction/Urban Runoff

How Will These Programs Be Funded?Program Elements That May Be Missing

Authority to Implement BMPsMissing Programs for Specific SourcesStrengthened Local Programs

Focus on PreventionMonitoring ProgressEnforcementList of Conflicting Federal Programs

Further Reading

737576777779808181818282838384

Chapter 6: Drawing Up an Implementation Schedule 87

PART IV: IMPLEMENTING THE MANAGEMENTPROGRAM 91

Chapter 7. Monitoring Implementation and Enforcement 93

Watching the Implementors 94

Is the Management Program Doing Its Job? 96

Further Reading 97

TipBeing a Watchdog 98

t,

xii CONTROLLING NONPOINT-SOURCE WATER POLLUTION

APPENDIXES

A. Offices of the Environmental Protection Agency and Stateswithin Each EPA Region 101

B. State Water Pollution Control Agencies 105

C. Nonpoint-Source Provisions in the Water Quality Actof 1987 119

D. Report of the Conference Committee, U.S. House ofRepresentativesManagement of Nonpoint Sourcesof Pollution 143

E State Water Resources Research Institutes 149

F. Major Nonpoint-Source Pollution Categoriesand Subcategories 163

G. Agricultural Chemicals for Which EPA Has RecommendedWater-Quality Criteria 167

References 169

Foreword

Storm water runoff from city streets, suburban lawns,farmers' fields, and other such nonpoint sources is increas-ingly recognized as a major source of pollution of both sur-face and ground water in the United States. In response tothis problem, Congress passed amendments to the federalClean Water Act in February 1987, requiring states to in-itiate nonpoint-source pollution control programs.

Citizens can play an important role in helping theirstates develop these programs and spurring effective effortsto deal with nonpoint-source pollution. The purpose of thishandbook is to assist citizens in this effort. The informationthe handbook includes, however, should also benefit theagencies responsible for developing these programs, as well

as the landowners likely to be affected by program require-ments.

Controlling Nonpoint-Source Wat#y Pollution: A Citizen'sHandbook is a collaborative effort between The Conserva-tion Foundation and National Audubon Society. These twoorganizations also worked together in helping Congress toformulate the nonpoint-source program that was finallyenacted.

Both to ensure this book's accuracy and to guarantee thatit can be an effective tool for citizens in their efforts, Con-trolling Nonpoint-Source Water Pollution has been exten-sively reviewed by government officials and individualcitizens active on water pollution issues around the country.

xiu

13

xiv CONTROLLING NONPOINT-SOURCE WATER POLLUTION

The authors have paid particular attention to the sugges-tions made in these reviews as they have fine-tuned themanuscript.

The Conservation Foundation, National AudubonSociety, and the authors would like to thank a number ofpeople, in addition to the numerous reviewers, for the con-tributions they made to this document. Pam Cubberly ofThe Conservation Foundation put substantial work intorewriting this handbook to make it more useful for the in-tended audience. Without her help, it would be much lessintelligible and useful than it is. Connie Mahan of NationalAudubon Society lent her expertise on working with the"grass roots" in reviewing the portions of the handbookproviding "tips" on how to be effective. Roger Wynne, anAudubon intern, provided valuable assistance in the earlydevelopment of the handbook. And Marsha White of TheConservation Foundation worked her usual magic toproduce clear manuscripts from often inscrutable originals,with the Foundation's Fannie Mae Keller and Jeanie Kimalso providing valuable assistance.

Finally, thanks are due to the Virginia EnvironmentalEndowment and the Ford Foundation for their generoussupport of this project.

William K. Reilly Peter A. A. BerlePresident PresidentThe Conservation Foundation National Audubon Society

Introduction

An Opportunity forCitizen Action

JUST AN ORDINARY RAIN STORM

The sky darkens. The wind whips up. On the streets of thecity, umbrellas pop open and steps quicken. Constructionworkers, welcoming a break, duck under sheltered parts oftheir half-built structures, while suburban stay-at-homesrace to shut their windows. Outside the city, in fields half-plowed, farmers don slickers and simply ignore the turn inweather.

It's just an ordinary storm, with barely enough rain togive vegetable gardens a good soaking. But with the raincan come serious pollution to our lakes, bays, rivers,streams, and aquifers. Where stormwater cannot soak intothe earth, it runs off, filling street gutters and washing offexposed land. The onrush of water sweeps accumulateddust, dirt, debrisand often organic matter and toxic pol-lutantsfrom roads, construction sites, lawns, and otherareas into city sewer lines and sometimes diretly into sur-face waters. Farm gullies may channel water muddy withsediment, fertilizer and pesticide residues, salts, and animalwastes into streams and from there to larger bodies ofwater. Despite our nation's serious efforts to clean up pollu-tion from factories and sewage systems, these less obvioussources of pollution are keeping our water dirty.

1

1 J

2 CONTROLLING NONPOINT-SOURCE WATER POLLUTION

Nonpoint-source pollutioncontaminants that enter ournation's waterways when water washes across the surface ofthe landis a nationwide problem. It is responsible for anestimated 99 percent of sediment, 88 percent of nitrates,and 84 percent of phosphates entering America's lakes andstreams.1 Decomposition of organic wastes put into thewater by human activities uses up oxygen vital to life. Non-point sources are responsible for 73 percent of this biologicaloxygen demand (BOD) in our waterways.

The cost of this dirty water is significant. A 1984 studyby The Conservation Foundation2 estimated the yearly costsimposed by sediment and associated contaminants resultingfrom erosion alone as being anywhere from $3.2 to $13 bil-lion. And these estimates do not include many very sig-nificant impacts on biological systems for which an economicvalue is difficult to assign. Nor do they account for the costsof nonpoint-source pollutantssuch as nitrates and manypesticidesthat dissolve in water.

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZEN ACTION

If you are concerned about the quality of your state's waterbodies, you have the opportunity to do something about it.

Early in 1987, the U.S. Congress passed The WaterQuality Act (hereafter referred to as the 1987 amendments),which amended the Federal Clean Water Act. Among otheractions, Congress directed the states to develop programs tobegin to reduce nonpoint-source pollution. Prior to theseamendments, Congress had concentrated on the cleanup ofpollution from point sources, primarily municipal sewersand industrial discharges. As pollution from these sourceshas abated in the last 15 years, the role of nonpoint sources,largely uncontrolled, has become increasingly obvious. TheU.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recentlyrepartee that 24 states ranked nonpoint-source pollution asa "major problem," while an additional 21 states identifiedit as a "problem," impairing surface-water quality. (Seefigure 1.)

HIE

IVII

VA

V A

dOD

ISg

a

L'd

'986

1 Is

n6ny

'oa

.uol

6uN

sem

'spm

pue7

s pu

e S

OO

Rel

n6O

8 .1

81E

'M J

O 9

0410

'6e0

-99-

0/op

p vd

3 's

sarb

uop

01vo

det,i

0.8

61 k

olua

nui A

llltin

0 ie

lem

two"

'Aau

e6v

uope

nid

leiti

oulo

mnu

a s

n ea

moS

',oda

, 074

wai

ciog

i Jof

einj

wei

cioi

d

wam

aid

lepu

alod

g

uori

ncip

luo3

aam

os-w

rodu

oN p

a 10

/W1

asnO

ld


The 1987 amendment on nonpoint-source pollution4 re-quires each state to develop and implement an effectiveprogram to control this pollution. First, the states mustidentify and, to the extent possible, quantify the problemwithin their borders in an "assessm3nt report." Then, theymust figure out solutions to the problem by developing a"management program." Both these documents must besubmitted to EPA by August 4, 1988, 18 months after theamendments became law. States must implement theirmanagement programs within four years of their submis-sion to EPA. No penalty is imposed if states do not carry outthese steps.* If your state's commitment to the task is notstrong, people like yourself can play an important role inspurring the cleanup of these remaining sources of pollu-tion.

liOW CAN YOU KELP?

While preparation of a nonpoint-source control program isultimately the responsibility of your state's water-pollution-control agency, citizens can influence the content of thatprogram in a variety of ways. Since states face no penaltyfor not participating in the nonpoint program (other thanthe fact that they will not be eligible for grant money to ad-minister the program), you may need to pressure your stateeven to get started. This may involve raising the awarenessof both state officials and the public about nonpoint-sourcepollution. Once the state begins to assess its nonpointproblem, you can help by reviewingand perhaps addingtothe state's list of water quality problems and the non-point sources that cause them.

During the development stage of the managementprogram, you can review proposed control techniques (calledbest management practices or BMPs), the enforcement orassistance programs select,d to get BMPs used, and thetimeline for implementation of the entire management

*If a state does not complete an assessment report, the law requiresEPA to do it. However, the law does not require EPA to develop thestate's management program.

1a

N.

INTRODUCTION 5

program. Remember, a weak program may be as bad as noprogram at all. Finally, you can monitor the progress of themanagement program once it is implemented to make surethe job gets done. Helping to make sure that those respon-sible for nonpoint-source pollution carry out the recom-mended BMPs and that their actions actually result incleaner water is probably the most important and most dif-ficult task for citizen advocates.

Citizens can make a useful contribution at any stage andto any aspect of the nonpoint-planning process. You maywish, for example, to focus your efforts on problems in a par-ticular water body, type of water body, type of nonpointsource, or type of BMP. Or, you may decide to focus on oneparticular agency, following and encouraging its workduring the course of the nonpoint-planning process.

If you are not already part of an existing network ofcitizens concerned with water pollution in part or all of yourstate, you may want to join one. Networks of citizens cancoordinate to monitor the nonpoint-planning process fortheir community, an entire watershed, region, or state. Inthis way, you may participate in a broader, more com-prehensive effort to develop public support for nonpoint-source pollution control, identify a comprehensive list ofproblem water bodies and nonpoint sources, and/or monitorhow well the management program gets implemented.Remember that you do not have to be an expert to con-tribute to the nonpoint-planning process. Citizen activistscan play an important role just by asking good questionsabout what they notice in their lakes, streams, and otherwater bodies; and let the state take on the burden of findingthe answers. For example, why does a local stream turnbrown with silt or smell bad after a heavy rainstorm? Is it agood practice to plow right up to the edges of streams? Whyis dirt from construction sites allowed to wash into streetgutters?

The 1987 nonpoint-source pollution control program en-courages your participation. The law requires that the stateprovide "notice and opportunity for public comment" before

J


it submits the assessment report and management programto EPA. EPA must also allow for public comment after it hasreceived these documents from a state. Other opportunitiesfor citizen input will probably arise. This handbook isdesigned to give you the tools you need to make effective useof these opportunities and to find other ways to influencethe nonpoint-planning process in your state.

HOW TO USE THIS HANDBOOK

Controlling Nonpoint-Source Water Pollution: A Citizen'sHandbook, !produced jointly by The Conservation Founda-tion and National Audubon Society, takes you step-by-stepthrough the process that your state must follow to complywith the 1987 amendments relevant to nonpoint-source pol-lution. The Handbook is designed to help you no matterwhat stages of the process, geographic area, or aspects ofnonpoint control you decide to take on. Part I provides back-ground on nonpoint-source pollution and references fog moreinformation. Parts II, III, and IV describe in detail the non-point-planning process. Tips on how you can get involved inthe process are included both within the text and in special"tip" boxes, and references concerning more inthrmation onspecific topics appear at the end of most of the chapters. Theappendixes provide useful addresses and phone numbers,the text of relevant portions of the 1987 amendments andconference report, and other helpful information.

AN OVERVIEW

Before proceeding into the first chapter, however, youshould become acquainted with the ovorall process set up byCongress. As mentioned earlier, the 1987 amendmentsdirect states to prepare a non.point-source control programconsisting of an assessment report (part II of this handbook)and a management program (part III). The si ates must thenimplement the management program (part IV).

aw

INTRODUCTION 7

The Assessment Report

The assessment report must identify those water bodieswithin a state's boundaries that cannot meet state water-quality standards because of nonpoint-source pollution(chapter 2) and the specific activities causing those waterbodies to not be in compliance with either the standards orthe "goals and requirements" of the Clean Water Act (chap-ter 3). Congress requires this assessment of the magnitudeof a state's nonpoint pollution problem so the state can focuscleanup efforts on the most serious problems and allow EPAto evaluate the effectiveness of proposed managementprograms. These reports also provide a national data base ofnonpoint sources and pollution problems in every state.

The Management Program

Once a state has identified bodies of water significantly pol-luted by nonpoint sources and what those sources are, itmust design and submit to EPA a management program tosolve the problem. Among other things, the managementprogram must: (1) identify BMPs for controlling specificnonpoint sources (chapter 4); (2) identify existing, andpropose new, programs to encourage or require the use ofBMPs (chapter 5); and (3) set up a tight time schedule forthe implementation of the management program (chapter6).

Implementation

Once EPA approves a management program, the state con-cerned has four years to implement it. Part III of this hand-book discusses how you can monitor the implementation of amanagement program once it has gone into effect.

The goal of the 1987 nonpoint-source pollution amend-ment is to finish the job of cleaning up the nation's watersthat was started in 1972 by implementing effective manage-ment programs in every state. We welcome your comments


and suggestions on the usefulness of Controlling Nonpoint-Source Water Pollution: A Citizen's Handbook as youproceed with this vital task.

FURTHER READING

Other cit'.zen guides that may be helpful include TowardClean Water: A Guide to Citizen Action (Washington, D.C.:The Conservation Foundation, 1976) and Groundwater: ACommunity Action Guide (Washington, D.C.: Concern, Inc.,1984).

;

INTRODUCTION 9

Tips

Developing Support forNonpoint-Source Pollution Control

By raising the awareness ofthe public and of state officialsabout nonpoint-source pollution(where nonpoint problems occur,what they are costing the state,and the lack of existing effectiveprograms), you can build politicalwill within the state to tackle theproblem and develop solutions.

First on your agenda shouldbe to join or form a group andplan a strategy to influence thenonpoint-planning process. If nogroup already exists, arrange ameeting of people concernedabout water pollution and inter-ested in doing something aboutit. Try to select people who bringa wide range of skillsfor ex-ample, writing, public speaking,technical expertise, etc.andwho will be willing to work hard.Additional members may be

recruited as you begin to

publicize your efforts through themedia and by contacting othergroups. At your first meeting,have your group brainstorm whatyou need to do. Write everythingdown on an easel or a large padof paperotherwise good ideas

might get away. At this meeting,you should:

Identify Your GoalsAssess your strengths and

weaknesses so that you canselect realistic goals. Citizengroups can monitor all or just apart of the nonpoint-planningprocess in their state. If youbelong to a statewide network ofcitizens concerned about waterquality, you may want to followprogress on the development of

the entire state managementprogram. Smaller groups withmore limited resources and ex-pertise may want to focus theirefforts on some smaller slice ofthe pie. Goals can be as variedand creative as your resourcesfor achieving them, but makethem as specific as possible. Setdeadlines as a yardstick formeasuring the success of yourefforts.

Identify Your Natural AlliesIdentify interest groups that

can help you achieve your goals.Think broadly. Some likely

r r,J


natural allies could be: (1) en-vironmental organizations in yourstate; (2) other organizations thatfor economic or other reasonsare sympathetic to your goalsfor example, recreational andcommercial fishing interests, out-door outfitters, etc.; (3) busi-nesses, organizations, orgovernmental bodies that usewater and would benefit from itbeing cleanfor example,municipal water-supply facilities,industrial dischargers that mustremove nonpoint pollutants tocomply with discharge limitationson their permits, etc.; (4) localand state officials. By includingnonenvironmental groupsforexample, groups that willeconomically benefit from im-proved water qualityyou will beable to present importanteconomic arguments to counteropponents' concerns about thecosts of pollution control.

Form a CoalitionThe people and organizations

you have identified as potentialallies can help at various stagesby signing letters, providingresources, or giving testimony.You might also consider askingthem to join you in a formal coali-tion. A unified body of variedgroups may bring wider recogni-tion and support as well asgreater resources to the effort ofa single group.

Plan a FundraiserDon't forget that your ac-

tivities will cost moneyto payfor stationery, the telephone,copying, travel, experts, lab fees,etc. On your agenda should beplans for raising money.Schedule a party, concert, bakesale, garage sale, raffle, or otherevent. The occasion will also ad-vertise your organization's ef-forts. Many established environ-mental and other nonprofit or-ganizations will have useful ad-vice on how to plan a successfulfund-raising event. Consult theNational Wildlife Federation'sThe 1987 Conservation Direc-tory1 for names and phone num-bers of local or national organiza-tions.

Plan some Special EventsSpecial events can publicize

your activities and bring mem-bers of the general public into thefold. For example, a workshop, towhich experts and politicalfigures are invited, will not onlyattract a large audience who willlearn about your work, but willalso allow you to educate peopleabout the problem and perhapsmotivate them to action.Workshops are most effectivewhen carefully planned and whenfocused on a specific topic. Organize your workshop wellenough in advance r() publicize itwidely.

Be CreativeFind creative ways to broaden

your support. Invite the public,press, and important political offi-cials to visit a body of water thathas been damaged by nonpoint-source pollution. Piggyback yourissue onto other events: Dis-tribute materials at conferenceson related topics organized byother groups or at a booth at acounty fair. Adopt a slogan thatcaptures in a few short wordssome public sentiment aboutclean water. Slogans, like "Save

INTRODUCTION 11

the Bay," convey a message.The more people you get to dis-play that message, the widersupport you will appear to have.

Know Your OpponentsBe aware of special interest

groups or individuals who opposenonpoint-source pollution control.Establish contacts with thesepeople or organizations, and dis-cuss your differences openly. Tryto find some common groundifonly to identify where your dis-agreements are.

Taking Advantage of Formal and InformalOpportunities for Participation

During the development of theassessment report and manage-ment program, many formal opportunities will arise to get youropinions before derision makers.You can also create informal op-portunities. Use any of these oc-casions to press for the bestprogram possible.

Formai OpportunitiesPublic meetings and other op-

portunities for public input arelikely to occur throughout thenonpoint planning process. Besure to anticipate these actionsand use them to introduce yourviews formally to the press and tostate agencies. Submitting writ-

ten comments and testifying atpublic hearings are two of themost effective means of influenc-ing the original formulation ..of astate's nonpoint-source controlprogram. Here's how:

Look for notices solicitingpublic comment. In accordancewith state and/or federal law,agencies involved in nonpointplanning will provide public noticeof actions such as a public hear-ing or the release of a draftmanagement program. Such an-nouncements will appear in thelocal newspaper and at certainpublic places, such as librariesand government offices. A goodway to be sure not to miss these

" J

9


notices is to get on the agency'smailing list. The notices willdescribe the specific action beingtaken by the agency as well asinformation to aid public par-ticipation. Thus, a notice may in-dicate the date, time, and type ofpublic meeting to be held or theavailability of any documents forpublic review such as an environ-mental impact statement or adraft program. In addition, anotice may specify certain proce-dures that must be followed tosubmit comments for publicrecord. For example, it mayprovide a date by which com-ments must be received, indicatethe number of written copies thatmust be submitted, or specify atime limit for oral comments at apublic meeting.

The notice should be postedin time to provide adequate timefor meaningful public review. Usethe time to prepare yourresponse carefully. Before testify-ing at a hearing or submittingwritten comments, talk torelevant parties, establish goodrelations with agency personnel,and formulate a well-reasonedand accurate response. It may benecessary to use the help of ex-perts (see "Free and Paid Exper-tise," chapter 2). Experts mayalso be willing to testify publicly,although their comments shouldnot be substituted for citizeninput.

Testifying at a HearingCome to a public hearing

armed with a written statement toback up your oral summary ofmajor points, since time may notpermit the reading of a completetestimony. Be brief, concise, andto the point. Not only must yoube able to present your critique,but you must have goodevidence for your claims. Be sureto attach any supportingdocumentation such as monitor-ing data, maps, studies,photographs, or surveys to yourwritten testimony. Be polite, butfirm with your views. Dress neat-ly, as appearances are important.

Follow up on the agency'sresponse. Government agenciesare ger'erally required to respondto comments received from thepublic. The degree of formality ofthe required response will varyfrom state to state. For example,public comments may be in-cluded in the draft plan with anexplanation on behalf of the plan-ning agency as to how they wereconsidered. It is important tomake sure that your commentswere received and taken into ac-count. If they were not, find outwhy. In some cases, lack ofresponse to the public's com-ments may be grounds for a law-suit.

Informal OpportunitiesIn addition to these formal op-

portunities for input, you mayhave or be able to create infor-

mal opportunities to influence thenonpoint-planning process. Stayin close contact with planners asthe program is being developed.Use the telephone, send cor-

INTRODUCTION 13

respondence, or schedule meet-ings in order to present yourviews and the results of any inde-pendent research you have con-ducted.

Working with the Media

Effective use of the media canspur statewide involvement innonpoint planning. Working withthe media at various stages inthe process can help educatepublic officials about water-quality issues as well as heightaripublic awareness on norpoint-source pollution, the state's plan-ning process, and its preliminaryresults. Contact the media topublicize public hearings, meet-ings, and events that you'veplanned. Take advantage ofsome of the following ways to getcoverage from the media:

Work with Specific ReportersTry to develop rapport with

reporters who work specificallyon environmental issues. If noneexist, contact outdoor or spoilswriters: they may serve the samefunction. Give these reporters ac-curate and succinct informationon the most pressing nonpoint is-sues in the area. Provide, butdon't overwhelm, them with use-ful background information. Beavailable to answer their ques-tions. Notify them about any

newsworthy events or "human in-terest stories" on nonpoint pollu-tion. You may want to work witha member of the editorial staff ifthe nonpoint program becomes ahot political issue.

Send Letters to the EditorA well-written letter to the

editor of newspapers with local orstatewide coverage is an effec-tive means of educating thepublic on your issue. Your lettershould be timely: Submit it threeto five days after a relevant ar-ticle or event. State your viewprecisely and clearly in 200 to300 words; type the letter, if pos-sible, and sign it.

Submit an Op-ed PieceMost newspapers periodically

run op-ed (opinion editorial)pieces, which allow readers topresent their views in essay fomon important issues. A well-timedop-ed can educate the public onnonpoint pollution in general oron a particular local issue. Makesure your facts are accurate andrelevant.


Write a Press ReleaseA press release draws the

media's attention to a newswor-thy event, such as a hearing orissuance of state's draft manage-ment program. On your group'sstandard letterhead (if you don'thave one, you might considercreating one), set out the majordetails of the event or topic inshort, readable sentences.Create a catchy headline. Keepthe release short: only one to twopages. Type it double-spacedwith side margins and end eachpage with a complete paragraph.Place "For Immediate Release"or a date for future release in theupper right-hand corner near the

2

headline. Include a contactname, address, and phone num-ber in the upper left-hand corner.

Plan a News ConferenceNews conferences brief repre-

sentatives of the press, TV, andradio in person on a topic ornewsworthy event. Notifyreporters well in advance.Choose a slow news day, if pos-sible. Have packets containingfact sheets, pictures, andrelevant background articlesavailable. Feature an articulatespeaker who is brief and to thepoint. Don't forget to have coffeeand doughnuts!

Chapter 1

A Different Kind ofPollution

Nonpoint-source pollution is caused primarily bystormwater and snowmelt runoff from land surfaces, for ex-ample, farmland, forests undergoing logging, and urbanareas, although wind may also carry dust and dirt into sur-face waters. Other sources exist. Mines, septic systems, haz-ardous wL ate sites, and landfills all may leak a variety ofpollutants into ground and surface waters.

Nonpoint-source pollution creates many of the sameproblems as point-source pollution. Heavy metals, pes-ticides, and other toxic chemicals washed off streets, farms,and lawns can poison fish and other aquatic wildlife; decom-position removes dissolved oxygen necessary for the survivalof valuable fish species; and nitrates and other nutrientscan cause extensive algae blooms or the rapid eutrophica-tion* of lakes and estuaries.

But the vast amounts of sediment released from nonpointsources can cause a host of other problemscoveringspawning beds for anadromous fish, exacerbating flooddamage, and filling in reservoirs, drainage ditches, and ir-rigation car.als. (See figure 2 for a list of the types of adverseimpacts of nonpoint-source pollution.)

*A process by which lakes age.

17

33


Figure 2Adverse Impacts and Costs of Nonpoint-Source

Pollution

In-Stream Costs / Effects Off-Stream Costs/Effects

Biological;Loss of speciesDestruction of species habitatAlteration of food webInterruption of ecosystem func-

tions

Recreational.Loss of recreational fishing

fresh water and marineLoss of boating and swimming

opportunitiesSwimming and boating acci-

dentsLoss of waterfowl hunting op-

portunities

Water-storage facilities*Need to construct larger sedi-

ment poolsNeed to dredge and excavate

sedimentsEarly replacement of storage

capacityAdditional water-quality treat-

ment required

Navigation:Delays and accidents in ship-

ping/boatingDamage to marine enginesNeed for dredging and dis-

posal of spoils

OfhexLoss of fisheryReduced property values and

aesthetics

Flood damages'Deposition of sediment on

cropland, roads, and otherprivate property

Loss of productivity resultingfrom sediment deposition

Loss of human life

Water-conveyance facilities;Deposition and removal of

sediment in drainageditches, irrigation canals

Increased pumping require-ments

Water-treatment facilities andwater-users;Additional treatment requiredIncreased maintenance of

equipmentLoss of productivity

Drinking-water supplies:increased health risks and ill-

nesses from contaminatedsurface water andgroundwater

Supplemental drinking waterrequired

Adapted from Edwin H. Clark II,Jennifer A. Haverkamp, and WilliamChapman, Eroding Soils: The Off -Farm Impacts (Washington, D.C.: TheConservation Foundation, 1985).

A DIFFERENT KIND OF POLLUTION 19

In contrast to point sources, nonpoint-source pollution isgenerated from areas of land. Its control, therefore, ishampered by its diffusiveness. The impact of nonpoint pollu-tion usually depends on how close sources are to waterbodies, the type of soil, and the slope of the land, althoughcontaminants from distant sources may reach water bodiesafter several storms.

Nonpoint-source pollution can also cause seriousgroundwater contamination problems. Nitrates and somepesticides can seep into groundwater from cropland andsuburban lawns. Leakage from septic tanks and seepagefrom chemical spills, landfills, and a host of other sourcescan contaminate shallow groundwater supplies. Many otherof the same sources that affect surface water can affectgroundwater as well, particularly if the contaminants dis-solve in water. Finally, many of the measures that can betaken to lessen surface water pollution may result inmaking groundwater contamination more serious.

WHAT ARE THE MOST COMMON SOURCES OFNONPOINT POLLUTION?

In general, most sources of nonpoint pollution can begrouped into one of the following categories:

Agriculture

Two-thirds of the nation's rivers are adversely affected byagricultural nonpoint-source pollution, which stems fromcrop production and animal husbandry. The pollutants mostcommonly associated with agriculture include sediment,nutrients, salts, organic matter, pesticiees, and pathogens.

How and when the soil is tilled and agricultural chemi-cals, such as pesticides, fertilizers, and manure, are appliedcan determine how much pollution is generated.

In more arid regions, irrigation return flows may carryoff various salts found naturally on the land. These salts aredetrimental to aquatic wildlife and downstream water


users, and, at least in one caseCalifornia's KestersonReservoirhave forced the closure of a wildlife refuge.

Animal husbandry is another source of pollution. Al-though large feedlots are treated as point sources, anyoperation having less than 100 animals is considered a non-point source. Runoff from the lot itself or from manurestorage areas and stream banks can cause serious pollution.

Silviculture

At least 38 states experience nonpoint-source pollution fromthe cultivation, production, and harvesting of timber. Sil-vicultural operations can produce sediment, pesticides, andother organic materials. Although the total amount of pollu-tion may not be large, its impact may be quite significant:Forested watersheds produce high quality water suitable formunicipal drinking supplies, cold-water fisheries, and othervaluable recreational uses. Even limited amounts of pol-lutants can interfere with these uses.

Many different aspects of silvicultural practice maygenerate nonpoint-source pollution, including harvesting,logging, road building, burning, aerial pesticide application,and storage of logs in water.

Mining

Both operating and abandoned mines cause pollutionproblems throughout the country.* The pollutants of majorconcern include sediment, acids, heavy metals, radioactive

*Under both the Surface Mining Reclamation Control Act (whichregulates surface coal mines and the surface effects of underground coalmining) and the Clean Water Act, active mines are considered point sour-ces of pollution and regulated as such. Mine operators are required to col-lect runoff in a sedimentation basin or pond. The discharge from thesebasins or ponds is then regulated as a point source. However, nonpointproblems can occur from active mines, if existing regulations are not en-forced, and from orphaned or abandoned mines of any type. If inactivemines are later reopened for additional mining activities, they are con-sidered new mines subject to regulation under the point-source program.

33


materials, and salts. Nonpoint-source pollution at miningsites results primarily from drainage and leaching, theerosion of spoil piles and mine tailings, and runoff fromhaulage roads.

Water pollution from mining can be quite harmful. Al-though sediment is the most pervasive pollutant, acid minedrainage has killed the fish and plant life in entire streamsin vast areas of Appalachia. While the pollution often affectsa small area, heavy metals and radioactive materials inmine runoff can pose serious threats to surrounding ecosys-tems, as well as nearby human populations.

Runoff from old uranium, metal, and coal mines posesnonpoint problems in the West, while in the mid-Atlanticand Appalachian regions, drainage from abandoned and in-active coal mines degrades more than one-half the streammiles in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland,and Delaware.

Construction/Urban Runoff

Runoff from constructionfor example, of housing develop-ments, highways and bridges, sewage treatment facilities,and industrial and commercial developmentsmake rela-tively minor contributions to total nationwide nonpointloadings, but the local impacts on water quality can besevere. The main pollutant from construction sites is sedi-ment. Erosion rates from construction sites can be 10 to 20twenty times those of agricultural lands, although muchsmaller areas are involved. Other pollutants generated atconstruction sites include chemical fertilizers, pesticides,petroleum products, miscellaneous wastes dumped on thesite, construction chemicals, and debris.

Construction sites are not the only potential nonpointsources in urban areas. Each time it rains, pollutants maybe washed off residential and urban streets, roofs, lawns,and other areas into lakes, rivers, or aquifers. A widevariety of potential contaminants are carried in stonnwaterrunoff--including asphalt, tar, oil, gasoline, fertilizers, lit-


ter, road salt and sand, pet wastes, and toxic materials in-cluding lead, cadmium, mercury, organic pesticides, am-monia, and oils.*

Other Sources

On-site Septic Systems

If septic systems are overloaded, inadequately sited or con-structed, or not maintained properly, untreated wastes mayoverflow and be washed off the surface or seep directlythrough the groundinto the groundwater or adjacent sur-face water. The most common pollutants are bacteria, otherpathogens, and biological oxygen demand (BOD), althoughnutrients and other chemicals dumped into householddrains are also problematic. Whereas most nonpoint sourcescause the most pollution as a result of rainfall or snow melt,failing septic tanks can cause the biggest problems duringlow-flow periods.

Landfills and Hazardous Waste Sites

Almost any chemicals dumped into a landfill can leak out.This includes the full range of oils, toxic solvents, and evensolid materials that decompose or dissolve. These con-taminants may be washed off the surface by stormwaterrunoff or flood flows or seep directly through the ground intothe groundwater or adjacent surface waters. In many casesthe pollution may not appear until years after the wastewas placed in the landfill and even for years after thelandfill is closed.

*The 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act include an enhancedprogram for regulating stormwater collected in storm sewers. There areseveral other provisions of the Clean Water Act relevant to the regulationor nonregulation of stormwater from certain activities. See Section402(1X2) (stormwater runoff from oil, gas, and mining operations), Section402(p) (municipal and industrial stormwater discharges), and Section502(14) (agricultural stormwater).


Air Pollution

Air pollution can cause nonpoint problems whereverstormwater runs off the land into streams and lakes. For in-stance, acid precipitation (commonly called acid rain) buildsup in snow and ice over the winter. The first spring thaw islikely to result in a heavy dose of acidic water being flushedinto streams throughout a region.

FURTHER READING

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has producedseveral useful reports on nonpoint-source pollution includ-ing Report to Congress: Nonpoint Source Pollution in theU.S. (Washington, D.C.: Water Planning Division, U.S. En-vironmental Protection Agency, January, 1984) and Non-point Source Runoff: Information Transfer System(Washington, D.C.: Office of Water, U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, 1983).

The Conservation Foundation report by Edwin H. ClarkII, Jennifer A. Haverkamp, and William Chapman, ErodingSoils: The Off-Farm Impacts (Washington, D.C.: The Con-servation Foundation, 1985), contains an extensive analysisof the types of impacts associated with certain forms of non-point-source pollution and their economic costs. Also seeGroundwater Protection (Washington, D.C.: The Conserva-tion Foundation, 1987).

Another useful general resource on nonpoint pollution isVladimir Novotny's and Gordon Chesters' Handbook onNonpoint Source Pollution: Sources and Management (NewYork: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1981).

Part II

Preparing theAssessment Report

Each state must complete an assessment report by August4, 1988, 18 months after the 1987 amendments wereenacted. The report must identify:

bodies of water that do not meet water quality stand-ards or "the goals and requirements" of the CleanWater Act because of nonpoint-source pollution (chap-ter 2), andthe most significant types of nonpoint sources of pollu-tion for each problem waterway (chapter 3).

In addition, states must: (1) describe the process (includ-ing intergovernmental coordination and public participa-tion) for identifying best management practices (BMPs)*

*The choice of BMPs is the stage of the nonpoint-planning processthat most affects persons responsible for generating nonpoint- source pol-lution. Therefore, the 1987 nonpoint amendment requires the assessmentreport to include a description of how a state will allow timely and effec-tive input from both experts and the public at this stage. The state mustalso ensure that all the right agencies at the state and local level are in-volved and are coordinating with each other.

25


and (2) list existing state and local programs for controllingpollution from nonpoint sources. The list of existingprograms will later help identify what additional programsare needed to clean up the pollution, and will be discussedin chapter 5.

33

Chapter 2

Identifying Water-QualityProblems

The 1987 nonpoint-source pollution amendment reads thatstates must identify "those navigable waters within theState, which without additional action to control nonpointsources of pollution, cannot reasonably be expected to attainor maintain applicable water quality standards or the goalsand requirements of the [Clean Water] Act." Once thesewaters are identified, the remainder of the program focuseson getting them cleaned up. You can help by informingstate officials of the location of any problem areas you findthrough your own efforts and by carefully reviewing thestate's list to ensure it is complete.

Identifying water bodies that fit within the requirementsof the law can be thought of as a three-step process. Thefirst is to determine which waters are polluted. The secondis to determine which of these waters are polluted by non-point sources. The third and final step is to determinewhether the pollution levels are serious enough to exceedstate water quality standards or to not meet the "goals andrequirements" of the Clean Water Act. Of course, your re-search may uncover answers to any of these questions atany time. But to be thorough, try to answer each questionin turn.

One of the major challenges in implementing the 1987nonpoint-source pollution amendment will be to develop ef-

27


Steps In Identifying Water-Quality Problems

Step one: Which water bodies are polluted?Step two: Which of these water bodies are polluted by nonpoint

sources?Step three: Are the pollution levels serious enough to exceed

state water-quality standards or to not meet the goals and re-quirements of the Clean Water Act?

fective management programs in the face of insufficientdata and/or vague and incomplete water quality standards,more often the case than not. You can help in this processby building a case based on information gathered frommany sources and by presenting it in such a way that makesthe state take a closer look at its waters.

STEP ONE: WHICH WATER BODIES AREPOLLUTED?

You can tap a variety of information sources to identify pol-luted water bodies. Through fieldwork, you can even try togenerate information yourself. The following list of sourcesand approaches is organized in order of their usefulness.Start at the beginning of the list, using the later ideas to fillany gaps.

State Reports on Water Quality

Som e of the best sources of information for identifying pol-luted water bodies are official state summaries of water-quality conditions (see examples below). In these reports,which may have been prepared for a variety of purposes, thestate should have identified waters failing to achieve water-quality standards. If your state has set up effective stand-ards, has taken thorough water-quality measurements and,even better, has analyzed the resulting data to provide aclear up-to-date summary of water-quality conditions for anumber of different pollutants, it has already carried out

IDENTIFYING WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS 29

Remember...

Water bodies in your state must not only meet state waterquality standards, they must also be clean enough to meet thelegislated goal of the Clean Water Act, that is, lo restore andmaintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of theNation's waters."

steps one and three of the identification process for you. Ifyou are lucky, the state may have also identified whichwater bodies are polluted from nonpoint sources (step two).

A. 305(b) of the Clean Water Act. Biennial summaries ofwater quality in a state are required under Section 305(b) ofthe Clean Water Act. These reports are prepared by f.state's water-pollution-control agency and then submitted tothe Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Although theformat varies from state-to-state, each report generallyidentifies areas where water-quality standards are notbeing met and provides other information on point and non-point pollution. Request copies of these reports from yourstate's water-pollution-control agency (See appendix B.)

B. Other State Reports. State agencies may haveprepared similar reports or summaries for the state legisla-ture, citizens, or the agency's own purposes. The state'swater-pollution-control agency or the legislature's environ-ment committees are the places to inquire.

C. ASIWPCA Water Quality Reports. Most states alsoprepared water quality summaries in 1982 and 1984 for theAssociation of State and Interstate Water Pollution ControlAdministrators ( ASIWPCA). While limited in detail, theASIWPCA reports provide a quick picture of possibleproblem areas. The most recent report, entitled America'sClean Water: The State's Nonpoint Source Assessment, 1985can be obtained by writing ASIWPCA, 444 N. CapitolStreet, NW, Suite 330, Washington, D.C. 2001.

The state probably had to develop the above water-quality reports using very limited data, so the reports maynot be useful in identifying all polluted waters. In many

.


cases, the state may have made little more than "judgmentcalls." Some waters that should have been included may nothave been.

This is particularly true for pollution problems caused bynonpoint sources, since existing monitoring programs areoften ineffective in identifying these types of problems.Most monitoring focuses on the types of pollutants dis-charged by industries and municipal sewage systems, notnecessarily those likely to be associated with nonpoint sour-ces. In addition, most nonpoint-source pollution problemsare intermittent, occurring during or just after a stormwhen measurements are not likely to be taken. In fact, thepeople responsible for going out and taking measurementsare quite likely to conclude that this is the best time to catchup on all that paperwork piling up in the office. Monitoringdata, if available at all, probably cover only a few pollutants,were gathered at infrequent intervals, perhaps once amonth, and were analyzed only after a long delay, if at all.

It is important to remember that, since states tend tomeasure the water quality of flowing waters, they may havelittle information about the quality of water in ponds, lakes,reservoirs, bays, and estuaries. These areas can be serious-ly affected by nonpoint-source pollution, because they tendto be sinks, collecting runoff and accumulating pollution. In-formation on lake and reservoir water quality may be avail-able from special monitoring programs, such as the NationalEutrophication Survey, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineersreservoir study, as well as the state's efforts under the Sec-tion 314 Clean Lakes Program. Another good source of in-formation is the North American Lake ManagementSociety, its membership list and conference proceedings.

Given the possible limitations of these reports, you canuse several approaches to finding polluted water bodies thatwere missed. The first is to go out and look for them your-self. The second is to turn to special studies. After you haveexhausted these sources, you might see what you can getfrom specialized governmental agencies, universities, andenvironmental or other groups. Finally, as a last resort, you

4 Ay/

IDENTIFYING WATER-QUALITY PROBLEMS 31

might try to look at unprocessed monitoring data, aerialphotos, or even satellite photos to identify rivers receivinglarge inflows of sediment.

Fieldwork

Drive around in the vicinity of a lake, stream, or other waterbody especially after a storm, and note signs of water-

Figure 3Windshield Surveys of Water-Quality Impacts

from Nonpoint-Source Pollution

Drive around near lakes, streams, and other water bodies. If awater body exhibits any of the characteristics listed in the left-

hand column, the nonpoint activity listed in the right-handcolumn may be the cause.

What You See Possible Nonpoint Source

Muddy waters Sediment from agriculture, silviculture,urban runoff, or construction sites

Build-up of sand or mud Sediment from agriculture, silviculture,urban runoff, or construction sites

plant growth Nutrients from agricultureor urban runoff or septic tank seepage.

Pesticides from agricultureor silviculture; runoff from mining

Pesticides from agriculture or silviculture.

Runoff of animal wastes; urban runoff

Runoff from silviculture,construction sites, or urban areas

Coal or waste materials from mining

Excess algae or

Dead fish

Odd smell

Foul odor

Debris in water

Black water

Oddly colored water. sediment. or soil Mine drainage;runoff from industrial sites

DILL. water Urban runoff

Damaged stream channQl_a Animal grazing

/13


quality problems. At this stage, you might as well narrowyour search to problems probably caused by nonpoint sour-ces. (See figure 3 for a list of signs of nonpoint-source pollu-tion.) For example, a stream's water may be very silty, in-dicating runoff from city streets, a construction site, or farmfields. You may also want to take the opposite approach bylooking for a likely nonpoint sourcefor example, a con-struction siteand tracing runoff to the nearest water body.

Supplement your fieldwork by surveying local residentsdoor-to-door or sending them a questionnaire. They mayknow of an old swimming hole that has silted up, a streamthat has become thickened with algae, or a sewer that over-flows during heavy rainfalls. Obtaining Citizen Feedback byWebb and Hatryl can help you design your questionnaire.

Special Studies

At this stage, you may also be able to fill gaps by learningwhat you can from special studies:

1) Section 208 of the Clean Water Act. This section re-quired preparation of areawide water-quality managementplans, including an analysis of nonpoint-pollution problems.Although funding for 208 plans was eliminated in 1981,

most states analyzed water-quality problems associatedwith the various nonpoint-pollution sources. As of 1982,

over two hundred 208 water-quality. plans had been ap-proved. The plans provide useful historical background onwater-quality issues in each area, many of which are stilllikely to be relevant. Agencies to contact about 208 plansinclude state water-pollution-control agencies*, regionalcouncils of government, regional EPA offices, and regionalplanning commissions.

2) Studies Focused on Particular Geographic Locations.Some areas with highly visible nonpoint problems, such asthe Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes Basin, or Colorado River,have provoked special studies and management activities on

*See appendix B for addresses and phone numbers of state water pol-lution control agencies.

4 4


a regional or local level. State or substate (regional) agen-cies, for instance, may have conducted special problem as-sessments and watershed-management plans designed toidentify and reduce inputs from nonpoint pollutants. Astate- or regional-level water-quality management agencymay know about the existence of any special studies, water-shed plans, and monitoring efforts.

3) Other Special Studies. Sometimes teachers or stu-dents at local colleges and secondary schools will takewater-quality measurements as part of an on-going or spe-cial research project. Check with faculty in departments ofenvironmental studies, biology, engineering, and waterresources.

Other Sources of Information

Agencies that specialize in agriculture, public health, mini-ng, or other topics may also have site-specific informationabout water-quality problems. Because of their longstand-ing work with farmers on soil erosion, the U.S. Soil Conser-vation Service and locally based, soil and water conservationand irrigation districts may have information on water-quality trouble spots. County health agencies, because oftheir interest in safe drinking water, may be aware ofwater-quality problems that affect human health. Countypublic works departments may have information onstormwater runoff.

Local branches of national environmental or other or-ganizationsfor example, the National Audubon Society,the Izaak Walton League, the Sierra Club, Trout Unlimited,the National Wildlife Federation, and the League of WomenVotersmay also prove useful. Contact local or state-widerecreational clubs, such as fishing, hunting, or garden clubs,for help in identifying problem waters, particularly thosewith impaired fishing and wildlife habitat. Local organiza-tions already formed in response to problems should be par-ticularly helpful. The 1987 Conservation Directory2


published by the National Wildlife Federation can directyou to various environmental organizations in your state.

Unprocessed Water-Quality Measurement Data

As a last resort or to fill any gaps left, you may want to sortthrough unprocessed monitoring data collected by any of theagencies or organizations mentioned above. Check firstwith your state water pollution control agency (see appendixB) to find out if they or anyone else have been takingmeasurements not yet analyzed as part of official statereports. Under the best of circumstances, the state willhave installed monitoring stations that take continuouswater-quality measurements upstream and downstreamfrom all major municipal and industrial dischargers.

If, as is more likely, your state's water-quality data areincomplete, you might contact the local office of the U.S.Geological Survey (USGS).* USGS maintains a system ofover 500 monitoring stations across the country called theNational Ambient Stream Quality Accounting Network(NASQAN), providing useful data on water quality trends.It may, however, be of limited use in isolating problems dueto the location of the stations, the types of measurementstaken, and the infrequent tabulation and analysis of theresults.

STEP TWO: ARE NONPOINT SOURCES THECULPRIT?

By now, you have identified polluted waters in your state,region, or community. Some, you may already suspect, arecaused by nonpoint-source pollution. The second step in theidentification process is to determine which of these watersare actually polluted by nonpoint sources.

*Your local library may carry a listing of local USGS Water ResourceOffices called Water Resources Division Information Guide, or call theUSGS Public Inquiry Office at (703) 648-6892.

U


One hint is the type of pollution problem that occurs.Some types of pollution are more commonly caused by pointsources. Others frequently result from nonpoint sources.Again, refer to figure 3 for a list of water-quality problemsoften caused by nonpoint sources.

Another clue is when pollution problems occur. In con-trast to point sources, most nonpoint-source problems occuras a result of stormwater or snowmelt runoff. Thus, ifwater-quality problems occur during or after a storm, espe-cially in the case of rivers and streams, nonpoint sources arequite probably involved. If the worst water-qualityproblems occur during the stream's low-flow periods, pointsources such as municipal sewers or industrial dischargesare the more likely culprits, although you should still be onthe lookout for leaking septic tanks and landfills.*

How do you find out if pollution occurs after storms?Compare measurements of the amount of water flowing inthe stream with measurements of water quality, looking forelevated pollution levels during periods of high water flow(i.e., during or after a storm). State and federal geologicalsurveys as well as other water-resource planning andmanagement agencies (for instance, the Tennessee ValleyAuthority, Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, the U.S. Geological Survey, and state or localwater-supply agencies) often collect flow data. They canprobably also provide some insight about when storms haveoccurred and what stream-flow levels are likely to result. Ifrivers are not actually "gauged" like this, weather bureaurecords can generally indicate when major storms have oc-curred. Remember that maximum stream flows are likely tooccur somewhat later than the maximum rainfall. Theamount of lag timefrom a few minutes up to a day ormoredepends primarily on how far the water has to travelbefore reaching the area where the water-quality problemoccurs.

*Some nonpoint-source pollutants, however, tend to have long-termimpacts that might. not be seen immediately after a storm. For example,lakes and estuaries may become eutrophic because of nonpoint-sourcenutrients contributed over the course of many storms.


How do I find out what my state's water qualitystandards are?

Just call your state water pollution control agency (see appendixB) or the EPA regional office that includes your state (see ap-pendix A).

One serious type of water-quality problem often causedby storms is officially considered a point-source problem.Cities, primarily in the Northeast, typically have sewer sys-tems which carry both sewage and storm water. These sys-tems will often overflow during storms, spilling raw or par-tially treated sewage into receiving waters.

Nonpoint sources can cause water quality problem,during low-flow periods as well. Pollutants leaching fromseptic tanks and landfills, for example, may be most notice-able during low flow periods, because there is less water inthe stream to dilute them.

Lakes, reservoirs, ponds, and estuaries may alsodemonstrate the most serious water-quality problemsduring low-flow periods, even though the pollutants enterthem during high flows. Many of the pollutants carried intostreams during storms accumulate downstream in ponds,lakes, reservoirs, or estuaries. There, the nutrients washedoff fields may stimulate algae and weed growth and otherproblems associated with eutrophication.* Pesticides andother toxic substances may harm fish and other aquatic life.

And sediment may cause shoaling' or block out the lightneeded by bottom-dwelling vegetation and other aquatic life.However, if any large uncontrolled point sourcesfor ex-ample, municipal sewage plants and industrial chargesare located upstream of the water body, they may well bethe major cause of the problems observed. You can then

*A process by which lakes age.

tShoaling occurs when sand or mud collects in a water body, for ex-ample, in sandbars.

zi 3


only guess at the relative importance of nonpoint sources onthe basis of your "windshield survey" evidence.

A final hint on whether nonpoint sources are a problem iswhich pollutants are giving the most problem. High levelsof sediment, pesticides, oil, grease, and trash generally indi-cate nonpoint sources. Nitrates (from, for example, fer-tilizers and animal wastes) and phosphates (from, for ex-ample, fertilizers and sewage treatment effluent) can bedischarged by either point or nonpoint sources. Sophisti-cated chemical analyses may be able to determine fromwhich kind of source they come. Experts previously usedthe relative amounts of different types of bacteria as oneguide to source contributions, but this is no longer con-sidered a reliable indicator.

STEP THREE: IS THE NONPOINT POLLUTIONSERIOUS ENOUGH TO EXCEED WATER-QUALITYSTANDARDS OR TO NOT MEET THE GOALS ANDREQUIREMENTS OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT?

The third and final step in the identification process (if notalready adequately completed by the state or other agenciesor organizations) is to determine whether the pollutionproblems you have identified are really serious. The firststatutory test is whether the pollution levels are so highthat they exceed the state's water-quality standards. Thesecond statutory test is whether the goals and requirementsof the Clean Water Act are met.

What is a Water-Quality Standard?

The Clean Water Act requires that states establish waterquality standards for all their water bodies. A water-qualitystandard consists of two parts: (1) a designation of the useto be made of a water body or stream segment and (2) thewater-quality criteria necessary to protect that use from aparticular pollutant. Both parts of a standard must be at-tained. If a water body is not clean enough to 3upport its


designated use even though the water quality criteria set uphave been met, the water body is still not "in attainment."Some states also have provisions in their standards that donot allow any degradation of water quality that is detrimen-tal to beneficial or designated uses.

States have primary responsibility for setting waterquality standards. First, they decide on the desired uses ofthe water bodies within the statefor example, publicdrinking water supply, protection and propagation of fishand wildlife, primary contact recreation (for example, swim-ming), agricultural and industrial water supply, and naviga-tion. Since different uses require different levels of purity,states are then supposed to establish water-quality criteriathat specify the quality of water required to support a par-ticular use. Criteria to achieve these standards act as upperlimits to the allowable concentrations of given pollutants.EPA has recommended water quality criteria for varioususes of water bodies that are to be used as guides by thestates in setting their standards.

The stringency and inclusiveness of state standards willvary from state-to-state. For example, they may not addresspollutants such as agricultural chemicals which are of par-ticular importance in nonpoint-source pollution.* If there isnot a state water quality standard for a particular pollutantcommonly found in runoff, then those standards will be ofno help in identifying waters impaired by that pollutant.Therefore, you need to review your state's water qualitystandards to determine how helpful they are going to be inidentifying waterways degraded by nonpoint sources.

Comparing Monitoring Data With Water-QualityStandards

If your state has established numerical criteria in its waterquality standards and you have adequate data on actualpollution levels, comparing one with the other will indicate

*A list of those agricultural chemicals for which EPA has issuedwater-quality criteria can be found in appendix G.


whether the standard is being exceeded. If it is exceeded,the water body is not "in attainment."

Even if no numerical criteria are exceeded, the usesdesired for that water body may still not be attained. Thismay be true because criteria have not been established forall nonpoint-source pollutants. It may also be that the statehas not monitored the water body frequently enough. Findout if the state's criteria are higher than the water-qualitycriteria recommended by EPA or if monitoring data arescanty.

In some cases, the state will have adopted narrativerather than quantitative criteria. A narrative criterionmight say that a state's water should be free from:

substances that will cause the formation of putrescentor otherwise objectionable bottom deposits;oil, scum, and floating debris in amounts that are un-sightly or deleterious;materials that cause odor, color, or other conditions tosuch a degree as to cause a nuisance; orsubstances in concentrations or combinations harmfulor toxic to humans or aquatic life.

In these cases, no precise measure is given of whetherthe standard is being met or not. One way to get aroundthis is to see whether the pollutant concentrations are belowthose selected by EPA in its water-quality criteria docu-ments for the particular use designated. A second ap-proach is to see if the water is actually being used for itsdesignated use. For example, if a stream has been desig-nated recreational and no one is using it for that purpose,the chances are that a water-quality problem exists.

A third approach is to see if the water has so much pollu-tion that it will not support sensitive aquatic organisms.For instance, "Save Our Streams," a program of the IzaakWalton League, has developed a quick and easy field test forwater quality that requires just a pail, a sieve, and a page ofinstructions. The test is based on three species of insects


that generally inhabit healthy waters: stoneflies, caddisflies,and mayflies. If all three can be found, the stream is likelyto be healthy. If the first two are missing, the water isneither drinkable nor swimmable. Tha Stream QualitySampling Kit can be obtained by sending $5.00 to: SaveOur Streams, 258 Manor Drive, Glen Burnie, MD, 21061.

This, in fact, is similar to the approach taken in a thirdtype of water-quality criterion, a "toxicity-based criterion."This type of measure generally states that conceritratior s ofpollutants shall not exceed levels that exhibit a certain de-gree of toxicity, i.e., what it takes for a given pollutant tokill 50 percent of the organisms exposed to it (the lethal con-centration) for a specific period of time (usually 24, 48, or 96hours). This value is known as the LC50. The state may notaccept as definitive the results of any tests you undertakeusing this criterion unless you have access to a recognizedwater quality analytical laboratory to confirm your results.Nonetheless, your results should certainly get the state tolook more closely at the problem you have identified.

IN CONCLUSION

Simply stated, assessing the importance of nonpoint sourcesto a particular water-quality problem is an inexact art. Thepollution-control agency may make use of sophisticated, al-though not necessarily more exact, computer models to helpin this effort. The individual citizen can help by marshall-ing enough evidence on the apparent importance of non-point sources to force the state to evaluate their likely con-tributions to a pollution problem more carefully.

The citizen can also ask hard questions about what mayhappen in the future. A water body may be meeting water-quality standards now, but will it continue to do so? Areland use changes occurring that will increase nonpoint-source pollutant loadings? And could these increases be sig-nificant enough to keep a water body from maintainingwater-quality standards? If so, these water bodies shouldalso be included in the program.

Jti


FURTHER READING

Chapters 1 and 2 in Report to Congress: Nonpoint SourcePollution in the U.S. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmen-tal Protection Agency, January, 1984) provide additional in-formation on the nature and extent of water-qualityproblems caused by nonpoint-source pollution.

41 1 J


Tips

Start with a Single Phone Call

Most citizen activists who getinvolved in nonpoint-source pol-lution control must first learn agreat deal. Initial stages involvegathering background informa-tion on the nature of the problem,the decision-making processwithin the state on water-qualitymatters, and the major players inthat process. Along the way, youwill gain expertise in the subjectand learn where to find profes-sional help. Don't be over-whelmedhelpful informationand people abound, and thingswill quickly begin to make sense.

The best way to start theprocess of becoming an expert iswith a single telephone call toyour state water-pollution-controlagency (see appendix B). Ask tospeak with an expert on non-point-source pollution or waterquality. Or, call a local orregional environmental groupthat has been active on cleanwater issues. These initial callswill snowball into a number of ad-ditional information sources to be

tapped later in the process. If

you are working in a group,divide up the fact-finding tasks.Depending on the goals of yourgroup, you could assign respon-sibilities for identifying problemsaccording to different areas ofthe state, types of water bodies(lakes, streams, groundwater,etc.), or some other logical way.

Be creative in your fact-find-ing efforts. Don't just rely ongovernment reports or whatpeople tell you. Conduct yourown fieldwork to verify identifiedproblem areas or to discover newones. Some outdoor fieldworkwill offer a welcome break forvolunteers who have beenspending time on the telephoneor reading government reports.

It is a good idea to set up filesfor documents, news clippings,journal articles, references tobooks that provide information onspecific topics, and names andphone numbers of useful con-tacts.


Free and Paid Expertise

Gaining expertise givescitizens credibility with decision-making agencies, the generalpublic, and the media. Expertisecomes in a variety of formssome free, some for hire. Onsome subjects, a citizen canquickly become an expert; otherswill require assistance fromprofessionals in the field.

Free Expertise(1) The local library. This

should be a good source ofgeneral reference materials andtexts on topics relating to non-point-source pollution.

(2) Newspapers. News andfeature articles provide goodsummaries of current eventsrelating to nonpoint-source pollu-tion. Newspapers also have"morgues" of past articles, whichcan be used for background onan issue.

(3) Friends and colleagues.Friends and coworkers can oftengive useful professional advice.Areas of expertise that may beparticularly helpful includelandscape architecture, engineer-ing, hydrology, and planning.

(4) Universities. Faculty andgraduate students are often valu-able resources. Departmentsthat may be particularly helpfulinclude natural resources, en-vironmental studies, silviculture,agriculture, zoology and othernatural sciences, civil engineer-

ing, and water-resources re-search institutes (see appendix Efor a list of water-resources re-search institutes).

(5) Government agencies.Government information is in thepublic domain. The best informa-tion will be obtained by specificrequests and persistent follow-up. Directories for governmentagencies are available in manylibraries to help callers reach theright people.

Expertise for Hire(1) Referrals. This is probably

the best way to find a qualified,reliable, and reasonably pricedprofessional. Ask local, regional,or national environmental or-ganizations for ideas.

(2) Professional associations.The American Planning Associa-tion, Association of ProfessionalGeologists, National Associationof Environmental Professionals,the American Society of Civil En-gineers, etc., are good places tolook for short-term consultants.These national associations arelikely to have local members whomay be willing to get involved in.nonpoint issues.

(3) Universities. While often asource of free information, manyuniversity professors consult onthe side. They are good can-didates for testifying at publichearings because of theiracademic credentials.


(4) Interest groups. Staff ofenvironmental or recreationalgroups may also be hired forprofessional services or may bewilling to donate their time. In-dividuals with many years of ex-perience can often provide valu-able expert testimony or back-ground on a particular topic.

(5) The Yellow Pages. Thislast resort for expertise is a hit-or-miss proposition. Potentialhires should be carefully inter-viewed, and terms of paymentshould be established in ad-vance.

How to Call Government Agencies

Citizen involvement in non-point planning means frequenttelephone contact with agencypersonnel. Some calls may be torequest information, others to in-fluence some aspect of the plan-ning process. Regardless of thepurpose of the call, the followingtips will help:

Plan your presentation. Makesome notes or prepare a list ofquesions beforehand. Give abrief and well-organized reasonfor the call. Take notes on theconversation and what you learn,and write down the contactperson's name and number forfuture reference.

Be as specific as possible.When requesting information ordocuments, try to cite specificreferences, names, or titles.

Be persistent. Get a commit-ment from the listener to take

some specific action. Call backto follow-up if necessary.

Be patient. Remember thatwhat you have to say is worthsaying to the right person. Askfor referrals until you are directedto the appropriate contact.

Be courteous. A polite andfriendly approach will get the bestresults.

Be sensitive. Be aware of theamount of time people can spare.

For gaining more detailedbackground on an issue, it isusually most helpful to meet withthe person instead of talking onthe telephone.

(Tips on calling governmentagencies were adapted from:Clean Streams Handbook, ACitizen's Manual for Building aClean Water Community (Seat-tle: U.S. EPA, Office of ExternalAffairs, 1981), p. 26)

r r00

Chapter 3

Identifying Sources ofNonpoint Pollution

Once the state has identified bodies of water that are pol-luted by nonpoint sources, the next step is to identify thekinds of activities, and, in some cases, specific sources thatcause this pollution. The law requires the state to identifythose categories and subcategories of sources that add "sig-nificant pollution" to the water bodies identified through theprocesses described in chapter 2. It also gives the state sub-stantial flexibility in how it defines these categories.

In general, categories are defined by the type of ac-tivityfor example, mining, construction, or agriculture.Depending on the state, all agricultural activities might belumped together in one category or split up into separatecategories, such as, cropland or animal husbandry. Sub-categories, on the other hand, may focus on particular vari-ables, for example, type of crop, degree of slope, or distancefrom a water body.

The law allows the state substantial freedom in usingtopographic, economic, land ownership, and other charac-teristics to define subcategories, to allow the state to focusits control efforts on the specific types of sources causingmost of the problem. For instance, the state may havedesignated cropland as a category, but wants to focus itscontrol efforts on specific types of cropland. One sub-category might be cropland planted with soybeans, having a

45

g/


slope greater than 5 percent (i.e., sloping downward morethan 5 feet for every 100 feet of length), and located within amile of a stream. Cropland planted with corn and havingthe same topographical characteristics might be anothersubcategory. Specific strategies to control these sub-categories of nonpoint-source pollution can then be designedand included in the management program.

The effectiveness of nonpoint-source pollution controlmay rest on how well the state sets up these subcategories.If they are defined too narrowly, the state may miss impor-tant sources of pollution. If they are defined too broadly, thestate's efforts could be spread too thinly and may generatepolitical opposition by imposing controls on a large numberof relatively unimportant sources. It may also not be able toimpose the controls necessary to deal with the more seriouscontributors, because it will want to treat everyone in a sub-category equally.

The state will probably define subcategories of sources byconsidering: (1) what specific kinds of situations create themost pollution, (2) the availability and cost of differentmeasures (BMPs) to control it (see chapter 4), and (3) whatassistance or regulatory programs exist (or could bedeveloped) to handle that source (see chapter 5). If yourstate water-pollution-control agency is doing its job, it willusually make these decisions using extensive and compli-cated informational and analytical techniques. For ex-ample, it may review topographical and land-use maps todetermine which types of sources are most prevalent, whichare closest to streams and lakes, or, using erosion estima-tion techniques, which fields experiencing the highest ratesof erosion are likely to discharge pollutants into receivingwaters. It may also use computer models to connect specifickinds of sources with particular water-quality problems. Bycombining the results of these analyses, the state shouldhave a fairly accurate idea of the kinds of sources causingmost of the problem.

There are several ways in which citizens can contributeat this stage. First, by linking nonpoint sources with iden-

53

IDENTIFYING SOURCES OF NONPOINT POLLUTION 47

tified polluted water bodies in chapter 2, you may identifytypes of sources that the state has not found. Second, theknowledge you gain in this process may help the statedefine the most appropriate subcategories. Finally, your re-search should give you some idea of the adequacy of thestate effort. By presenting evidence to the state that othersources exist, you may even spur it to be more thorough.

You are likely to be most effective if you establish a goodworking relationship with state planning personnel. Moststate personnel welcome citizen help, particularly if theyhave only been hearing from landowners and developers.Ask a member of the state planning team to keep you ap-prised of their analysis of sources and make sure that theprocess makes sense to you.

In addition, try to learn about the perceptions of thosewhose activities result in pollution. You may discover onegroup, for example, that greatly resists being categorized asa nonpoint source. You and state planners should be awareof these perceptions, since they may need to be counteractedby additional education or research.

HOW CAN YOU DETERMINE WHAT KINDS OFNONPOINT ACTIVITIES ARE CAUSING THEPROBLEM?

As stated in chapter 2, the nature of a water-qualityproblem may indicate specific types of nonpoint sources.Figure 3 listed some of the water pollution problems as-sociated with different types of nonpoint sources. For ex-ample, excessive algae growth may indicate nutrient inputsfrom surrounding farmlands. Dead fish or oddly coloredwater may indicate pesticide runoff from lawns or fields, ortoxic metals from industrial sites.

Once you have made som educated guesses on possiblesources, go out into the field to look for them. Just as youspotted water-quality problems by carrying out windshieldsurveys, you may also be able to spot potential pollutionsources, ok pridence of them, by driving around during or


immediately after a storm. Look for some of the telltalesigns of nonpoint sources indicated in figure 4. Or look forditches, pipes, or tributaries that are discharging largevolumes of muddy water. By following these water channelsto their beginnings, you may be able to locate specific fieldsor activities that are causing the pollution. Nearby resi-dents may also be able to point out possible sources.Moveover, you may be able to uncover nonpoint sources thatlead you to additional polluted water bodies for your state'slist.

When you discover possible nonpoint sources, takephotographs and note carefully the location, date, anddescription of what you see. Try to gather evidence thatlinks the source with a pollution problem. For example, aseries of photographs linking the erosion of a field with amuddy river or a photo showing a dirt trail leading from aconstruction site. You may need this evidence later on, ifyou want to argue for strengthened control strategies for agiven source.

Make sure that all "problem" bodies of water are linkedto a source or sources. If you uncover any sources that arenot being considered by the planners, develop a strategy tosupport your contention that such a source should be in themanagement program. Present your evidence to agencypersonnel either in person or over the telephone. If thesource is still ignored, be prepared to present your claim atpublic hearings and to the media.

HOW ARE WORKABLE SUBCATEGORIESDEFINED?

As mentioned earlier, the law focuses its attention on themost important categories and subcategories of sources. In-cluding every possible nonpoint source might so diffuse con-trol efforts that the management program would end upbeing ineffective. While the definition of categories is rela-tively straightforwarda typical list might include agricul-

EJ


Figure 4Windshield Surveys for Nonpoint Sources

If in driving around you observe a situation listed in the left-handcolumn, it may indicate a nonpoint source listed in the right-handcolumn.

What You See Possible Nonpoint SourceEroded gullies in fields Agriculture, mining,

construction sites, silvicultureEroded streambanks AgricultureNo grass or trees along streambank Agriculture&buffer zone of grass or trees Agriculture, mining,

between plowed fields (or other construction sites,cleared land) and stream silviculture

Animals in stream or grazing along banks Agricultureor in forests

Mud and debris slides SilvicultureEroded gullies along roads SilvicultureObvious discharge from mine operations MiningAreas where streams intercept mines MiningEquipment or coal refuse piles in or near a stream MiningOddly colored water. sediment. or soil Mine drainage;

industrial sitesBlack water Coal dust from miningStorm sewers discharging after storms Urban runoffPlaces with large areas of impervious surface Urban runoffClogged storm drains Urban runoffFlooding Urban runoffOil slicks Urban runoffObvious tracts of exposed soil Construction sitesEroded gullies or trail of dirt from Construction sites

construction siteAbsence of erosion control techniques Construction sites

such as grass cover hay bales or fencing


ture, mining, urban runoff, construction sites, silviculture,and septic tanksthe problem of defining subcategories re-quires more thought, since subcategories allow planners tofocus on the types of nonpoint sources causing most of thepollution.

Certain characteristics of the land or of the activity con-cerned determine how much pollution is created. For ex-ample, the closer the source to the water body, the morelikely that runoff from the source will cause pollution. (Dis-tant sources may add to the problem when pollutantswashed off by one storm and deposited in an intermediatearea are swept by later storms into water bodies far fromthe original source.) The steeper the land, the more pollu-tion is likely to be carried off the surface. For instance, asteep mine tailings pile is likely to erode faster than onewith gentle slopes. In addition, the greater the amount ofcontamination on the ground surface, the greater theamount likely to be washed off into waterways. For ex-ample, an old industrial site may have a far more serious ac-cumulation of toxic substances on its ground surface than amodern, recently built industrial park. Finally, the moreeasily water flows over or drains from the land the greaterthe amount of pollution carried with it. For example,soybean fields, which have a fair amount of exposed soil, aremore likely to erode than wheat fields, in which the denservegetation slows the flow of water.

Thinking through the breakdown of sources into sub-categories allows the design of the most specific controlstrategies possible. A superficial analysis of sources maygloss over this important step. Make sure that the planners

Some of the Factors That Contribute to theSeriousness of a Nonpoint Source:

How close is the source to water bodies?How exposed is the soil to the elements?How frequent and severe are storms?How steep is the land, and how long are the slopes?

Ceti


have identified subcategories within each given sourcecategory. You may need to find specialists who can help youunderstand what conditions and types and combinations ofactivities contribute the most nonpoint pollution (see Freeand Paid Expertise, chapter 2).

Agriculture

Pollution from agricultural activities such as crop produc-tion and grazing may depend on irrigation practices, tillagemethods, animal waste management practices, pesticideuse, fertilizer use, use of buffer zones, and streambankmanagement. Some irrigation practices allow largeamounts of water that carry soil, fertilizers, pesticides, andother contaminants to flow off fields and back into streams.Sprinkler irrigation usually results in less runoff and there-fore less surface-water pollution. Tillage systems that clearthe land of all vegetation are likely to allow more runoff andpollution than conservation tillage approaches that leavelarge amounts of crop residue on the soil surface.* Animalfeed lots and manure storage areas that are located uphill ofa stream and lack adequate runoff catchment areas may beserious pollution sources. Heavy fertilizer and pesticide ap-plications, particularly just before storms, will often resultin heavy chemical pollution discharges. In addition, plow-ing fields right up to a streambank (leaving no buffer) or al-lowing cattle to graze freely on streambanks can impairwater quality. Agriculture assistance agencies such as theSoil Conservation Service, state agriculture departments,county extension agents, and offices for irrigation or conser-vation districts may be able to help identify which combina-tion of characteristics contribute to the worst pollutionproblems.

*Conservation tillage may result in more contaminants reaching thegroundwater, however, in part because it usually requires higher pes-ticide application rates.


Mining

Mining subcategories may be defined by the type of mine(for example, coal, metal, or rock and gravel), by whether itis a surface or underground mine, by the procedures used instoring overburden and other mine wastes, by varioustopographical characteristics, by its size, or by other factors.Coal mines, metal mines, and gravel mines will all use dif-ferent processes for handling mineral resources, resulting indifferent water quality impacts. The practices used to hand-le mine tailings, spoil, and leachate will also affect pollutionpotential. Personnel at state or federal, geological survey ormining agencies may be able to offer some insight on whichof these characteristics are likely to be most relevant.

Silviculture

Silviculture may be separated into categories according totypes of related activity--for example, road building,reforestation, pesticide use, type of harvesting practice, andresidue management. Here again, the slope of the land andproximity to water are important considerations. Other im-portant considerations include: how intensively the forest ismanaged (Heavy aerial pesticide applications can drift orrun off into adjacent waters.); what kind of harvesting ispracticed (Clear cutting is likely to result in more runoffthan selective cutting.); whether buffer strips are main-tained along streams during harvesting; what is done withthe slash; and whether the area is reseeded. State forestrydepartments may be able to offer some insight into the mostimportant considerations, particularly in those states thatalready have forest practice acts.

Construction and Urban Nonpoint Sources

Construction activities and urban nonpoint sources mightbe divided into subcategories on the basis of the type ofdevelopment or the percentage of impervious surface. Sub-


urban lawns and golf courses can be important sources offertilizers and pesticides while contributing relatively littlesediment. Runoff from industrial sites and streets can carrya wide range of contaminants that have been spilled ordeposited on the ground. Or construction sites within aspecific distance from a stream or water body may be amajor problem. Local government planning and public

works or engineering departments, as well as agencies con-cerned with water quality, may be able to offer some addi-tional insight on these types of problems.

FURTHER READING

The various categories and subcategories of nonpoint-sourcepollution are described in chapter 2 in Report to Congress:Nonpoint Source Pollution (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency, January, 1984) and Handbook ofNonpoint Pollution: Sources and Management by V. Novot-ny and G. Chesters (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold,1981).

Another useful resource is Selection of Critical Areas forNPS Pollution Control (Raleigh, N.C.: North Carolina StateUniversity Extension Service, Water Quality Group, 615Oberlin Road, Suite 100, Raleigh, N.C. 27605).

Part NI

Developing aManagement Program

The assessment report provides the information base neces-sary for building an effective nonpoint-source pollutionmanagement program. This program must:

identify "best management practices" (BMPs) that cancontrol pollution from each category, subcategory, orspecific nonpoint source of pollution identified in theassessment report (chapter 4);list all existing, and propose new, regulatory and non-regulatory programs that can induce the adoption ofthese BMPs and prevent future developments that arelikely to cause nonpoint-source pollution problems(chapter 5); andprovide a clear time schedule for implementation ofthese programs and for adoption of BMPs to solve non-point-source water-quality problems expeditiously(chapter 6).

The law also requires that the management program in-clude: (i) certification that the state has the legal authorityto implement the program it proposes, (2) a description ofassistance programs that are available to get the manage-

55


ment program started, and (3) a review of federal programsthat may be contributing to nonpoint-source pollution.

The goal of the management program is not to punishthose responsible for particular types of sources nor to iden-tify a series of activities that would be effective if only some-one had the legal authority or courage to implement them.Nor is the goal to design a program that will offend no one.Rather, the program should, given the environmental,hydrological, economic, social, legal, and political realities,be designed to get the job done.

Chapter 4

Selecting BestManagement Practices

Any particular nonpoint problem may be controlled by avariety of different best management practices (BMPs)varying widely in cost and effectiveness. Most BMPs controlpollutants where they originatefor instance, farmers'fields. A few operate by collecting and reducing pollutantsaway from where they were generated but before they causeany water-quality damage. Some BMPs involve the con-struction of a control mechanism, such as an agriculturalterrace to slow runoff and control erosion or a concrete basinto capture urban stormwater runoff; others. may only re-quire improved operating practices such as cover cropping toreduce erosion or the use of "integrated pest management"to reduce pesticide applications. (Specific examples of BMPsfor different activities are described later in this chapter).The management program must identify BMPs that cancontrol pollution from each category, subcategory, or specificnonpoint source identified in the assessment report.

GOOD QUESTIONS TO ASK

Citizens can htlp at this stage by reviewing the state's selec-tion of BMPs and by suggesting alternatives where ap-propriate. In reviewing the state's selection, keep severalquestions in mind:

57


Are the Proposed BMPs Effective Enough?

Some BMPs reduce contaminant runoff only slightly.Others can reduce it substantially. In part, a BMP's effec-tiveness depends on the type of contaminant involved. Dis-solved contaminants such as nitrates and salts are very dif-ficult to control except by stopping runoff. Other pollutants,such as sediment, can be controlled much more easily bytemporarily slowing the runoff or filtering it throughvegetation, increasing percolation to the groundwater.

A BMP's effectiveness will also depend on such physicalconditions as soil characteristics and the slope of the land.Some will work well in sandy soils, which soak up waterrapidly, but much less effectively in clays. Some, such ascontour plowing, may work well on flat slopes but much lesseffectively on steep ones.

Finally, a BMP's effectiveness will depend on climaticconditions. Some (for example, catchment basins) work wellwith light rains but lose much of their effectiveness duringheavy storms. Similarly, in northern regions significantnonpoint- source pollution can occur in the spring or sum-mer when melting snow carries manure off fields or ac-cumulated debris off streets. Obviously, BMPs that dependon warm weather will be of little effectiveness under theseconditions.

Unfortunately, relatively little is known about how wellmany BMPs work, particularly in reducing pollutant dis-charges other than sediment. But citizens should makesure that the state has considered the various factors thatinfluence the efficiency of BMPs and has stated with sup-porting documentation its assumptions about how effectivethe BMPs will be and under what conditions.

How Much Are the Responsible Parties Likely toResist Adopting the Recommended BMPs?

The law is clear that the state must be ready to "assist, en-courage, or require" the adoption of BMPs by those respon-

SELECTING BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 59

sible for the subcategories of sources the state has defined.But some BMPs are quite expensive to adopt. Others mayreduce the landowner's ability to produce income from theland. Some ma_ y disrupt normal operating procedures andbe considered a nuisance. Others may require thatoperators be specially trained to implement them properly.All of these factors can cause landowners to resist adoptingthe proposed practices.

The problem of ensuring adoption and maintenance is amajor focus of the institutional mechanisms discussed inchapter 5. However, you should also keep this question inmind when reviewing the suitability of the BMPs themsel-ves.

How Likely is the BMP to be Properly MaintainedOnce it is Adopted?

Some structural BMPs continue to do their job after theyare installed with only occasional maintenance. Others re-quire continued maintenance or soon become ineffective,and many are really changes in operating procedures andmust be readopted annually. Proper continued main-tenance of BMPs can cost money and take time and effort.While the problem of continued maintenance should be ad-dressed by the programs discussed in chapter 5, it shouldalso be considered at the time that BMPs are selected.

How easy is it to determine whether a BMP is beingmaintained properly? In some cases, this is relatively easy:A field planted with a cover crop such as hay can easily bedistinguished from a field of corn. But in some cases it isvery difficultfor instance, determining the amount of carea farmer takes in applying fertilizers or pesticides. If aBMP appears unlikely to be maintained, you might suggestthat the state look at alternatives that can be easily in-spected.


What Other Environmental Costs or Benefits MayResult from the Adoption of a BMP?

Many BMPs operate by causing rainfall to seep into theground rather than running off the surface. Their adoptionmay result in a different kind of pollution problem, for ex-amp' e, dissolved substances such as fertilizers, pesticides,and salts may be transferred to the groundwater.

On the other hand, many BMPs produce benefits in addi-tion to reducing water pollution. They may create addition-al wildlife habitat, reduce flooding, conserve water, or in-crease groundwater supplies. And in urban areas, someBMPs can increase the cleanliness of streets and the attrac-tiveness of developments. Such associated benefits andcosts can be important considerations in the selectionprocess.

EXAMPLES OF BMPs

Agriculture

The agricultural sector uses an extensive system of BMPs,many developed over decades of attempts to control soilerosion. Five of the most common agricultural categories ofBMPs are tillage practices, cropping patterns, structuralmeasures to control erosion, cropland conversion to less in-tensive uses, and improved management of agriculturalchemicals.

Tillagethe way in which a farmer prepares a field forplanting and weed controlcan greatly influence theamount of soil and associated contaminants carried off afield by water and wind erosion. A popular practice is "con-servation tillage" in which old crop residues are not plowedunder the soil but left on the surface as mulch.* Contour

*Conservation tillage has, however, raised concern about potentialgroundwater contaimination because this technique may rely on in-creased use of pesticides while increasing the infiltration of water. Somescientists are concerned about the leaching of these chemicals intogroundwater.


plowing, that is, plowing, planting, and harvesting along thecontour of hills rather than straight up and down theirslopes, also helps reduce erosion. The furrows catch andhold water, allowing it to seep into the ground and therebyreducing runoff.

The type of crop grown on the land also affects the rate oferosion. Row crops, such as corn and soybeans, typicallyleave a large proportion of the land uncovered and allowwater to flow easily down the rows and off the field. Fieldcrops such as wheat or alfalfa provide a better canopy andretard runoff.

Other anti-erosion cropping techniques are: crop rota-tions that include soil-conserving crops in the sequence ofcrops grown; cover cropping, i.e., planting close-growinggrasses or legumes where the land would otherwise be leftfallow; and strip cropping, i.e., planting strips of close-grow-ing crops such as alfalfa and meadow grasses as buffers be-tween strips of row crops such as corn. In some cases (forexample, on steep slopes with highly erodible soils), themost effective approach is simply to take the field out ofcrop production entirely.

If structural measures are properly maintained, they canbe used to retain or redirect runoff for many years. Suchstructures include terraces, diversion channels, sedimentbasins, and grassed waterways. Terraces and diversionchannels reduce on-field erosion, while sediment basins andgrassed waterways reduce the amount of sediment deliveredto receiving waters.

Methods for improved agricultural chemical managementinclude integrated pest management and the more judicioususe of pesticides and fertilizers. Both techniques requirecareful attention to the frequency, timing, and amount ofchemical use. Reducing chemical use offers one of the mosteffective ways to reduce chemical pollution from nonpointsources.

A variety of techniques, including concrete manure pits,controlled grazing rates, shifting (rotating) pastures, andfencing of stream banks, help control nonpoint pollutants


from livestock. Special techniques, such as management ofthe quantity and timing of irrigation water, are used to con-trol salt buildup in runoff from irrigated fields in arid areas.

Agricultural BMPs vary widely in cost, relative effective-ness, and degree of benefit to farmers. Practices such asconservation tillage, integrated pest management, carefulirrigation management, and attention to cropping practicescan provide direct economic benefits, in terms of reducedproduction costs or increased yields, to the farmers whoadopt them. Conservation tillage can reduce the use oflabor and energy; integrated pest management can reducethe use of pesticides; irrigation management can reduce theuse of water; and changed cropping patterns can reduce theuse of all inputs. All of these techniques can also, in certaincircumstances, increase crop yields as well. Some controlmeasures, however, may be beyond the economic self-inter-est of a farmerfor example, terracing to control severeerosion or fencing of stream banks to keep animals out.

Silviculture

A variety of practices are used to reduce negative environ-mental effects of silviculture: erosion from roads, streamcrossings, and construction sites; soil disturbance from logremoval; and control of chemical runoff. BMPs frequentlyused to curb the release of sediment include better prehar-vest planning, better planned and constructed roads,revegetation and closing of roads after use, and estab-lishment of buffer zones along streams. Soil disturbancefrom log removal can be reduced by the use of special log-ging techniques, such as directional felling, as well as spe-cial techniques for harvesting, storage, and hauling. Final-ly, more careful application of fertilizers and pesticides,including avoidance of stream areas, helps reduce chemicalpollution.

BMPs in silviculture vary widely in cost and need to becarefully adapted to specific problems. Careful planning ofthe roads and equipment used at the harvest site costs little


and promises a high payoff in controlling sedimentationfrom preharvest activities. Other control techniques mayrequire a much greater investment, such as the constructionof bridges to protect stream crossings. Individual sitecharacteristics are important considerations when choosingsilvicultural BMPs. Slope, aspect, hydrology, elevation, andclimate will all affect the suitability of a given control prac-tice.

Mining

BMPs for abandoned mines are designed to prevent erosionof exposed earth, control mine runoff and acid drainage fromunderground mines, and control leaching of acids and me-tals from tailings and spoil piles. Erosion of exposed surfacemines is controlled by revegetation and reclamation. Thisrequires regrading the mine site and replacing the topsoil.Correction of drainage problems from deep mines involvessealing abandoned mines to minimize oxygen contact andreduce acid formation. Achieving a complete, long-lastingseal can be both technically difficult and costly. Leachingfrom coal and metal tailings and spoil can be controlled by avariety of techniques, including mixing of materials to helpstabilize or neutralize mill tailings, removing wastematerials from streams and gulches to higher ground, andcontaining leached materials in ditches, dikes, and im-poundments.

Significant technical and cost considerations are as-sociated with mining BMPs. Although BMPs are availablefor controlling nonpoint-source pollution from inactivemines, they are often expensive, of limitedeffectiveness, anddifficult to enforce. Therefore, the most effective control ofnonpoint-source pollution from mines is prevention by

proper site planning when operations begin.


Construction and Urban Sources

Urban BMPs often operate by removing loose dirt, litter,chemicals, and other debris from construction sites, high-ways, and city streets. Others focus on protecting disturbedareas from rainfall and flowing runoff, slowing the rate ofthe runoff, trapping sediment that is being transported, andkeeping chemical pollutants and debris out of the runoff.

These controls are accomplished by a combination ofstructural and nonstructural BMPs. The less costly ones in-clude careful planning and use of vegetative controls. Care-ful planning takes into consideration site factors such asnatural drainage, as well as scheduling construction to min-imize soil exposure. Soil stabilization practices, such asmulching, seeding, and applying ground cover, are also ef-fective in reducing runoff volumes and sediment load.

More costly structural approaches include the construc-tion of sediment basins, diversion ditches, and filter struc-tures out of stone and gravel or sandbags. These collect orredirect runoff to reduce negative impacts on receivingwaters.

Structural and nonstructural practices are also used tocontrol the volume of, and pollutant loadings in, urbanrunoff. The principal structural techniques are retentionbasins, in-line storage, and in-line screens. These methodsretain water and solids, that would otherwise flow directlyto streams, within basins and conveyance systems or allowwater to slowly percolate into the ground. NonstructuralBMPs include land-use planning, use of natural wetlandsfor stormwater storage, and good housekeeping practicessuch as control of litter and pet waste.

The choice of BMPs in an urban area may depend onwhether an area is already built-up or just beginning to bedeveloped. In established urban areas, structural controls,such as porous pavement, are expensive to implement, andnonstructural controls are limited in their effectiveness.The greatest potential for using structural and nonstruc-tural controls is ,n developing urban areas, where the

7


prevention of future pollution can be realized at the leastcost by building these features into the urban design.

FURTHER READING

Many texts and manuals are available that describe thetechnology, cost, and effectiveness ofBMPs for specific sour-

ces. Government agencies traditionally involved with thevarious sectors are also good sources of information. Sum-mary information on BMPs for the major sources of non-point pollution can be found in the following writtenmaterials.

General

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Nonpoint SourceRunoff: Information Transfer System (Washington, D.C.:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1983).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report to Congress:Nonpoint Source Pollution in the U.S. (Washington, D.C.:

U.S. EPA, January 1984).New York State Department of Environmental Conserva-

tion, Stream Corridor ManagementA Basic ReferenceManual (Albany, N.Y.: Dept. Env. Cons, January 1986).

Agriculture

Contact state agriculture departments, U.S. Soil Conserva-tion Service, local conservation districts, and agriculture ex-tension agents. Written sources include:

P.D. Robillard, M.F. Walter, and L.M. Bruckner, PlanningGuide for Evaluating Agricultural Nonpoint SourceWater Quality Controls, Report No. EPA-600/3-82-021(Athens, Georgia: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,September, 1982).

North Carolina State University Extension Service, BestManagement Practices for Agricultural Nonpoint Source

7 3


Pollution Control, I. Animal Waste, II. Commercial Fer-tilizer, III. Sediment, IV. Pesticide, prepared for the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Departmentof Agriculture (Washington, D.C.: -U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency and U.S. Department of Agriculture).Available from: N.C. State University Extension Service,Water Quality Group, 615 Oberlin Road, Suite 100,Raleigh, N.C. 27605. Telephone: (919) 737-3723.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,Water Quality Field Guide, Report No. SCS-TP-160(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Sep-tember, 1983).

Douglas A. Haith and Raymond C. Loehr, eds., Effectivenessof Soil and Water Conservation Practices for PollutionControl, prepared for U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Office of Research and Development, Environ-mental Research Laboratory (Washington, D.C.: U.S.Government Printing Office, 1979).

Raymond C. Loehr et al., eds., Best Management Practicesfor Agriculture and Silviculture (Proceedings of the 1978Cornell Agricultural Waste Management Conference)(Ann Arbor, Mich.: Ann Arbor Science Publishers, 1979).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Ser-vice, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Officeof Research and Development, Control of Water Pollutionfrom Cropland, Vol. 1, A Manual for Guideline Develop-ment (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Of-fice, 1975).

Silviculture

Contact state forestry agencies and the U.S. Forest Service.Refer to guidelines instate forest practices acts. Writtensources include:

Raymond C. Loehr et al., eds., Best Management Practicesfor Agriculture and Silviculture (Proceedings of the 1978

7


Cornell Agricultural Waste Management Conference)(Ann Arbor, Mich.: Ann Arbor Science Publishers, 1979).

National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and StreamImprovement (NCASI), Forest Management Practicesand Natural EventsTheir Relation to Landslides andWater Quality Protection, Technical Bulletin No. 401(National Council of the Paper Industry for Air andStream improvement, June, 1983).

U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, An Approach to Water Resources Evaluation ofNonpoint Silvicultural Sources (WRENNS) (Athens,Georgia: U.S. Forest Service and U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Aligust, 1980).

U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,"Forest Management for Water Quality," (Workbook toaccompany the National Forestry Water Quality Train-ing Program) (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Forest Ser-vice/EPA, August 1981).

National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and StreamImprovement, A Review of Current Knowledge andResearch on the Impact of Alternative Forest Manage-ment Practices on Receiving Water, Technical BulletinNo. 322, May 1979.

Mining

At the state level, contact milling divisions of naturalresource departments and local planning agencies. Sourcesat the federal level include the Bureau of Mines, Office ofSurface Mining, and Bureau of Land Management, all inthe U.S. Department of the Interior. See also:

Tennessee Valley Authority, Office of Natural Resources,Division of Water Resources, Regional Water QualityManagement Program, Coal Mining and Water Quality,(Chattanooga, TE: September, 1980).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air andWater Programs, Water Quality and Nonpoint Source


Control Division. Processes, Procedures and Methods toControl Pollution from Mining Activities (Washington,D.C.: U.S. EPA, October 1973).


Contact the U.S. EPA, state water pollution control agen-cies, and local planning agencies. Written sources include:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of WaterPlanning and Standards, Nonpoint Source ControlGuidance Construction Activities (Washington, D.C.:U.S. EPA, 1976).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water PlanningDivision, Final Report of the Nationwide Urban RunoffProgram, Final Draft, Vol. 1 (Washington, D.C., U.S.EPA, December 1983).

William G. Lynard et al., Urban Stormwater Managementand TechnologyCase Histories (Washington, D.C.: U.S.EPA, Office of Research and Development, August 1980).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Researchand Development, Urban Stormwater Management andTechnologies: Update and Users' Guide (Washington,D.C.: U.S. EPA, September 1977).

7 j


Tip

Push for Effective Control Strategies

As in identifying water-qualityproblems, the selection of BMPsrequires some technical "know-how." However, it is relativelyeasy to learn about BMPs bytalking to people with experienceand by doing some extra reading.Be sure to use the contacts youhave already established to learnabout BMPs (see "Free and PaidExpertise," Tips, chapter 2).

Although it is possible to gaina general understanding of therange of BMPs fairly quickly, it

may not be as easy to identifythe most appropriate ones forcontrolling the nonpoint-sourcepollution problems in your state.Agency personnel with ex-

perience in implementing BMPsmay be particularly helpful. Forexample, a county soil conserva-tion expert having firsthand ex-perience implementing a varietyof BMPs for a range of purposesmay provide a useful perspectiveon what may or may not work in

controlling agricultural runoff in aparticular area. It may also beuseful to talk to individuals suchas farmers or foresters who haveimplemented BM Ps.

Also remember that BMPsthat work for one type of sourcemay also work for another. Forexample, BMPs that controlerosion at a mine may be equallyuseful for controlling constructionrunoff. Leaving buffer stripsalong streams to prevent soilfrom a farm washing into a rivermay also work effectively in sil-viculture. Be creative in identify-ing BMPs.

You will quickly discover thatselection of BMPs is not neces-sarily an objective process. Morelikely than not, the relative effec-tiveness or appropriateness ofcertain BMPs will be in dispute,and strong opposition to anycosts associated with their im-plementation will exist. As acitizen activist, it is important foryou to be aware of these conflictsand concerns, and to push forthe control strategies that seemmost effective based on your re-search. You may also need todevelop arguments thatdemonstrate the cost-effective-ness or cost-savings of im-

plementing certain BMPs tocounter these fears.


Remember, if the program isgoing to succeed politically, it

must be perceived as fair as wellas effective. Therefore, resist at-tempts by certain interests tomake special deals and receiveexemptions from requirementsthat would otherwise apply. Atthe same time, resistance to im-

plementation of certain BMPsmay realistically indicate theneed to establish a more narrowsubcategory of sources. (Seechapter 3.) Be aware of theproblem, and always seek a solu-tion that makes sense from botha water-quality improvement anda political standpoint.

Chapter 5

EstablishingInstitutional Mechanisms

After the state has identified appropriate best managementpractices (BMPs), it must identify programs that will beused to ensure that the BMPs are, in fact, adopted. Some ofthese programs may already exist and be in use. Otherswill have to be created to ensure that all elements of themanagement program can be effectively implemented.

The full set of programs is likely to include both non-regulatory and regulatory components. Nonregulatoryprograms provide technical assistance (for instance, by localsoil conservation districts) or financial incentives (for in-stance, some form of cost sharing, or tax break) to encouragevoluntary compliance with BMPs. Regulatory programs,which incorporate mandatory controls and sanctions enfor-ceable by law, involve a state or local agency that issuesregulations requiring BMPs to be adopted and practiced andthen monitors for compliance. Such regulations are oftenused to control erosion at construction sites and to reclaimsurface mines.

The combination of regulatory and nonregulatory con-trols chosen should be tailored to the types of sources beingcontrolled and the severity and location of the nonpointproblem. BMPs that rely on voluntary compliance mayneed to be backed up by regulatory action. Similarly, iflandowners turn down financial incentives, the manage-

71


ment program should include an alternative strategy forgaining compliance. For some BMPs and some sources,regulatory enforcement may be the only way to guaranteecompliance.

Establishing institutional mechanisms for implementingnonpoint-source BMPs is a four-step process. First, thestate should identify all existing relevant programs. Actual-ly, by law this step should already have been completed inthe assessment report, which should describe existing stateand local programs for controlling nonpoint-source pollu-tion, including those that receive grants or loans under anysection of the Clean Water Act.

Second, the state should assess how effectively theseprograms have controlled or are controlling nonpoint-sourcepollution. Many of the programs were likely established forother purposes, and any pollution control benefits providedmay be incidental. Other programs may look fine on paperbut may have accomplished little due to lack of interest,resources, or will. Evaluating existing programs is impor-tant but also likely to be difficult. Often the best that can beaccomplished is an impressionistic evaluation based on ob-servations of what has or has not happened, reviews ofprogram budgets and reports, and discussions with agencypersonnel, intended program beneficiaries, and othersfamiliar with the types of issues the programs are supposedto address.

Third, the state should identify opportunities for modify-ing the programs so that they more effectively address non-point problems. Can the activities of the program be moredirectly focused on controlling nonpoint-source pollution?Would additional information and/or modifying existingguidance help in this focusing? Do mechanisms exist thatallow the programs to be developed along watershed boun-daries rather than political boundaries? Are additionalfinancial resources necessary? Often clear opportunitiesexist for modifications, but it is important to distinguish be-tween what could be done and what is likely to be done.Both the staff implementing the programs and the tradi-

8 3

ESTABLISHING INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS 73

tional beneficiaries may resist change. Legal, budgetary,and political constraints may also effectively prevent anymodifications to the status quo.

Fourth, the state should identify what new programs areneeded both at the state and local level. Here again, a fun-damental consideration is what is possible and practical. Acomprehensive regulatory program that would give thestate pollution-control authority the power to requireanyone responsible for a source to adopt designated BMPsmay be desirable, but may not be politically feasible. Localagencies may be best able to identify what needs to be doneand implement many aspects of the programs, and monitorthe the adoption of control measures. With this strategy amajor state role would be to offer inducements to local agen-cies to encourage them to take on these responsibilities. Alarge financial assistance program to help those responsiblefor sources to adopt BMPs could reduce the political opposi-tion but may not be budgetarily practical.

The creation of new programs will be a continual pull be-tween the desirable and the possible. Active participationby citizen groups can help ensure that the desirable is givenadequate consideration.

EXISTING PROGRAMS

Many programs for nonpoint-source control are alreadyavailable through federal and state agencies and can be in-corporated into a state's management program. Althoughmany of these programs may already be in operation in astate and should be described in the state's assessmentreport, it is important that they be explicitly included in thestate's nonpoint control program to ensure their effectiveuse.

The Clean Water Act and corresponding state water pol-lution control acts already contain some provisions relevantto nonpoint-source control. For example, some sources thatmight be thought of as "nonpoint" such as cattle feed lotsand certain mining operations are actually treated by law as


point sources. Permits that limit pollution discharges ordelineate pollution control measures are required for theseactivities.

The municipal construction grants program for sewagetreatment plants can also be used to handle some sources ofnonpoint-source pollution related to sewage disposal. Forinstance, this program can provide financial support for theinstallation of sewer systems in housing developments withseptic tank failures. Funds may also be used to addressproblems caused by the overflow of combined sewers.However, none of the funds can be used solely for the pur-pose of controlling stormwater drainage.

Other relevant programs may include the Clean LakesProgram (Section 314 of the Clean Water Act), the NationalEstuary Program (Section 320), various groundwater protec-tion activities, and a new stormwater permitting program(Section 402 (1)(2)). The Clean Lakes Program providesfunding for efforts to cleanup lakes that are already pollutedand to reduce the flow of pollution into them. The NationalEstuary Program was established by the 1987 amendmentsto protect and restore the nation's estuaries. Variousgroundwater protection activities implemented under theClean Water Act and other legislation (such as the ResourceConservation and Recovery Act) may have an impact onnonpoint-source pollution. Many states have similarprograms, and some have already begun efforts to controlnonpoint sources under their general pollution controlauthorities. The 1987 amendments also require that certainindustrial and municipal dischargers get permits forstormwater discharges.

The relevance of these programs will depend on thespecific circumstances being addressed, legal limitations tothe state's authorities, and the availability of resources.The Clean Lakes, National Estuary, and federalgroundwater protection programs, for instance, receive rela-tively little funding compared to the national need. RCRAand Superfund, however, are better funded.


Agriculture

The federal and all state and territorial governments havehad active soil conservation programs for years. Theprograms include research (conducted through the Agricul-tural Research Service, the Soil Conservation Service, andthe state land grant colleges); education (provided by theAgricultural Extension Service, the land grant colleges, andlocal Conservation Districts); technical assistance to in-dividual farmers (provided by the Soil Conservation Service,Agricultural Extension Agents, and local Conservation Dis-tricts); and financial assistance (provided by the U.S.Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service andstate agencies). These programs can contribute substantial-ly to nonpoint-source pollution control.

The agricultural programs rely almost exclusively onvoluntary participation. Until recently the responsibleagencies often did not even attempt to focus the programson areas where erosion or other water quality concerns weremost serious. In many cases, the prime concern of theresponsible agency has been to increase agricultural produc-tion or to maintain farm income, not to protect naturalresources. As a result, many of the program's resourceswere used as much to help the farmers' financial situationas to control real erosion problems. All of these programswill undoubtedly be listed in the state's managementprogram. But, citizens should find out if the programs inquestion are adequately funded and what will be done tofocus them on nonpoint sources of pollution.

The federal 1985 Food Security Act established severaladditional programs that can be used to control nonpoint-source pollution. Farmers can receive an annual paymentby placing highly erodible cropland into a "conservationreserve" after they have adequately planted the land with acover crop. The language of the act allows the Departmentof Agriculture to include other lands, such as "buffer strips"on areas where the irrigation return flow is environmentallydetrimental, in the conservation reserve as well. Other


clauses in the bill prohibit farmers from receiving benefits ifthey bring highly erodible land or wetlands into cropproduction. Again, citizens should find out how theseprograms will actually be used to reduce nonpoint-sourcepollution.

Silviculture

The U.S. Forest Service (within the U.S. Department ofAgriculture or USDA) and the Bureau of Land Management(within the U.S. Department of the Interior) are responsiblefor making sure that silvicultural operations on their landsdo not cause serious environmental problems. The ForestService has established guidelines for silvicultural practice,including appropriate BMPs, that it is supposed to follow inits own operations and is to include in all its contracts withprivate companies that harvest timber from federal lands.The Forestry Incentives Program and the Agricultural Con-servation Program also provide some cost sharing to aid inthe implementation of BMPs. Citizens should questionwhether these procedures are currently being adequatelyimplemented and enforced, and, if not, what will be done tomake them more effective?

The five western states with large silvicultural industries(California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Alaska) regu-late a wide range of silvicultural practices through stateforest practices acts. Under these acts, the state can requirethe adoption of BMPs on both private and public lands.Other states (Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, NewHampshire, and Pennsylvania) rely on "qua §i-regulatory"approaches to forest practices control by empl6cing existingsediment- and erosion-control laws or water-quality regula-tions. Some states also provide incentive programs formanaging silvicultural nonpoint sources, which commonlyfeature technical assistance and cost sharing. Again ques-tions to ask are: how effective are the current practices; arethey being implemented; and, if they are not adequate, whatwill be done to make them more so?


Mining

The largest federal program governing coal mining nonpointsources is that administered under the Surface Mining Con-trol and Reclamation Act by the Office of Surface Mining(Department of the Interior).* If the procedures called for bythe law have been adopted, nonpoint-source pollution fromactive surface coal mines should not be a problem.However, many of the states which have been delegated im-plementation of the law have been very lax in enforcing thelaw. in addition, eastern states must deal with a largenumber of small, illegal mines (recently calculated to be inexcess of 6,000). The Abandoned Mine Lands ReclamationProgram and Rural Abandoned Mine Program, which wereestablished by the Surface Mining Control and ReclamationAct and which focus on correcting water quality problemscreated by reclaiming abandoned surface mines, are hurt bya lack of adequate funding.

Until the 1987 amendments, no federal laws specificallyrequired the control of nonpoint-source pollution from noncoal mining operations, which include metal, hard rockminerals, sand and gravel, phosphate mining, and peat min-ing. Some states have laws for controlling unwanted en-vironmental impacts from these types of mining, but fewprovide any technical requirements for control of runoff(such as the imposition of BMPs) or effective powers of en-forcement.

No federal law and limited state interest exist for control-ling water pollution from underground noncoal mines ortheir waste piles. If these are a problem, new initiativeswill likely be required.


Few federal programs directly address the nonpoint impactsof construction and urban runoff. The Federal Highway Ad-

*The law regulates both surface mining and the surface impacts of un-derground coal mining.

83


ministration has erosion-control standards and requires im-plementation of control measures during construction ofhighways. Various soil conservation programs of the USDAmay provide technical assistance for site planning and con-struction of erosion control measures.

State and local governments, however, are likely to haveprograms that require site planning and the adoption ofspecific BMPs at construction sites. Sixteen states* hadenacted legislation for erosion control at construction sitesas of 1983. In addition, many state and local governmentshave developed engineering guidelines that address non-point-source pollution and are incorporated in contracts forconstruction of public buildings and roads. A state's overallwater-quality program may also address nonpoint-sourcepollution from urban runoff.

States and localities are also directly responsible for someof the facilities that cause nonpoint-source pollution. Statehighway departments can reduce salt runoff by more carefuluse of de-icing salts. Municipalities can modify street clean-ing programs, their management of parks, other publiclands, and solid waste collection activities; and they can con-struct and manage landfills to reduce pollutant runoff. Theprogram might include requirements that such practices beadopted and monitoring systems installed. Public educationon disposal of household wastes can be especially useful.

Land use, subdivisions, and other controls in newdevelopments can include pollution control provisions. Forexample, local zoning ordinances can prevent developmentof highly erodible lands and streambanks; site plan reviewscan include pollution control elements; and subdivision con-trol ordinances can require certain standards of perfor-mance, including holding basins to reduce stormwaterrunoff. Local or state agencies often control the siting, con-struction, and maintenance of on-site sewage dispcisal sys-tems. They may also provide public information on or con-trol the use of pesticides, and some undertake programs to

*Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland,Michigan, Montana, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania,Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Virginia.


reduce the inappropriate disposal of hazardous substancesand used crankcase oil which might otherwise be dumpedon the ground.

HOW WILL THESE PROGRAMS BE FUNDED?

Controlling nonpoint-source pollution need not be expen-sive, but it will not be cheap. Two separate funding ques-tions should be addressed in the management program: (1)funding for the agencies responsible for implementing theprograms and (2) financial assistance to those responsiblefor polluting sources to help them adopt and maintain con-trols.

The 1987 amendments provide several different sourcesof funds for the agencies implementing the program. One isa direct authorization of grants under section 319(h) of theClean Water Act. Congress must appropriate the funds,however, before they are actually available to the states.Another section of the Clean Water Act (205(j)(1)) wasamended by the Water Quality Act of 1987 (Section 316(d))to direct the EPA Administrator to reserve 1 percent (or$100,000, whichever is larger) of a state's annual allocationof funds under the construction grants program for im-plementing nonpoint-source n:-.anagement programs. Thegovernor of each state can also set aside 20 percent of themoney allotted to the state under the construction grantsprogram for nonpoint-source management (Section 316(d) ofthe Water Quality Act of 1987 amending Section 201(g)(1) ofthe Clean Water Act). And finally, the newly authorizedstate revolving funds (Title VI) may be used for loans topublic agencies or individuals for adopting nonpoint-sourcecontrols (see Section 603(c) of the Water Quality Act of1987). To the extent the programs are applicable, fundsmade available for the Clean Lakes, Estuary Protection, andGroundwater Protection programs can also be used to helpnonpoint-source control programs. In addition to thesefunds, state budgets include resources for administeringwater-pollution-control programs. Other state and federal


agencies can use some of their existing resources for thispurpose as well. All-in-all, state agencies should have ac-cess to adequate funding if they are willing to use the fund-ing sources available.

Financial assistance to those responsible for nonpointsources is much more limited. Most of the funding sourcesmentioned above cannot be used for this purpose. Manystate budget allocations are also limited. The major sourceof such assistance is the Agricultural Stabilization and Con-servation Service and similar state programs to helpfarmers install erosion-control and water conservationmeasures. But even these funds, at least at the federallevel, may be cut back or eliminated entirely at any time.

Thus, one of the major questions in developing the statemanagement program is the extent to which financial assis-tance will be provided to those responsible for sources toadopt controls.* Much of this funding will probably have tocome from state sources. Citizens should find out for whichparticular sources this assistance will be given and for whattypes of BMPs. How much assistance will be given (i.e.,what percentage of costs would be covered) and in whatformgrants or loans? The answer to these questions maydepend on how expensive the BMP is, and how much thelandowner benefits from its adoption. For instance, rela-tively little assistance might be appropriate in the case ofconservation tillage, which often results in reduced produc-tion costs for the farmer, but more might be appropriatewhen land is to be taken out of production for filter stripsand grassed water ways.

PROGRAM ELEMENTS THAT MAY BE MISSING

In addition to adequate funding, state managementprograms may also need to expand in several ways to be

*Grants made under Section 319 may not be used for direct assistanceto persons responsible for nonpoint sources except when related to theCOSt of demonstration project (see Section 319(hX7) of the Clean WaterAct..


truly coherent and effective. The elements most likely to bemissing are the following:

Authority to Implement BMPs

States may not have the legal authority to enforce all of therequirements that may be included in a managementprogram. New laws may be needed in some cases to allowfor the control of a previously unrecognized nonpoint source.Even more likely, the authorities of existing agencies willneed to be expanded to enable them to issue new or enforceexisting regulations. For example, the powers of a stateforestry department may need to be extended from provid-ing guidance in the implementation of BMPs to enforcingcompliance with them. The statutes relating to nonpoint-source pollution control in each state will need to be careful-ly reviewed for cases where additional powers need to begranted. Additional legal staff may also be needed by agen-cies to help with rulemaking, permitting, and enforcementactivities.

Missing Programs for Specific Sources

Some nonpoint sources of pollution have often never beenuncontrolled. New programs for these sources may need tobe developed at the state or local level. Some sources thatmay require special attention include septic systems, golfcourses, and home use of pesticides and fertilizers.

Strengthened Local Programs

Much of the ultimate responsibility for nonpoint pollutioncontrol falls on the shoulders of lc,cal government, but thisresponsibility is often unrecognized or ignored. A state'smanagement program may need to strengthen the ability oflocal government to enforce the implementation of BMPs.Local government may need special assistance in developingordinances for construction-site control, site-plan review, or


septic-tank regulation to achieve water-quality goals.States may also need to allow for the formation of inter-localagreements to help implement uniform control measuresthroughout a watershed and monitor for compliance.* Inmany cases, local government will have legal authority toraise funds or take regulatory action, but may need someextra prodding from the state to use it.

Focus on Prevention

Many of the existing programs for nonpoint control focus oncure, rather than prevention. Public education on prevent-ing nonpoint-source pollution is an important addition to astate's program. An educational campaign could bedeveloped from the resources of federal agencies, educators,the media, and concerned citizens. In some areas, govern-ment agencies have contracted private environmentalgroups to provide public education. Area-wide planning toanticipate problems can also be very valuable.

Monitoring Progress

Progress of the management program can be monitored inseveral different ways. The simplest is to note how manyregulations have been issued and training programs held,how much funding has been provided, etc. A second is tomonitor the extent to which BMPs are actually adopted, im-plemented effectively, and maintained satisfactorily. Athird is to determine whether the quality of the water is im-proving. The time schedule discussed in the next chapterwill depend primarily on the first and second of these ap-proaches. But obviously, whether the water is gettingcleaner is the more important question. A good manage-

*Under Section 319(e) of the Clean Water Act, if a state fails to sub-mit a management program or EPA does not approve a state's manage-ment program, a local public agency or organization that has expertiseand authority in controlling nonpoint-source pollution in any area of thestate may request the EPA administrator to provide technical assistanceand funding in developing a management program for that area.

3


ment program will include provisions for monitoring water-quality trends as well.

Enforcement

An effective management program will require some enfor-cement powers to back up any regulatory authorities. Theseare likely to be very controversial. If they are too weak ortoo strong they will probably be uselessin the former casebecause no one will care and in the latter because they willnever be used. Designing adequate enforcement tools thatwill actually be used is often the most difficult task in aregulatory program. Citizens reviewing the managementprogram should be aware of these difficulties, considerwhether the proposed enforcement tools are reasonable buteffective, and make sure the tools will be used if necessary.

List of Conflicting Federal Programs

The 1987 amendments contain a particularly obscure, butpossibly quite significant, provision inviting states to iden-tify federal programs that conflict with nonpoint-source con-trol. The amendments require the federal agencies incharge of those programs to take nonpoint pollution into ac-count as they implement their programs in the states thathave identified problems.

Many public programs adopted to achieve a particulargoal are, at least in part, thwarted by other public programsworking toward unrelated goals. In the case of nonpoint-source pollution, Department of Transportation-fundedprojects to build more highways, forest harvesting activitiesto produce more lumber, agricultural programs to increasecrop production or stabilize farm incomes, dam constructionand irrigation projects, the construction of defense bases bythe Department of Defense and other types of facilities byother agencies, the management of federal lands by theBureau of Land Management, and many other such ac-tivities can interfere with control efforts. These conflicts


can, of course, also occur at the state and local level andshould be addressed there as well.

The 1987 amendments incorporate an Executive Orderssigned by President Reagan in 1982. This order lays out aprocess by which state and local authorities may commenton applications for federal assistance and federal develop-ment projects to assure that these federally supported ac-tivities are consistent with state objectives. It also requiresfederal agencies to provide opportunities for elected stateand local officials to comment on the impacts of proposedfederal projects and allows states to institute their ownreview processes to be followed by federal agencies involvedin development or assistance programs. The executive orderrequires federal agencies to accommodate state and localconcerns or, if the concerns are not accommodated, to ex-plain in a timely manner why.

How helpful this provision may be is quite unclear. Theagencies are often reluctant to modify their programs totake account of factors that are of no importance to them,and no clear mechanism exists for enforcing the provision ifthe agencies do resist. However, it is certainly worth a try.The more directly the agency actions can be linked to actualpollution problems, the greater the chance of succeeding.

FURTHER READING

"Tackling Nonpoint Source Pollution," a special issue of theEPA Journal (volume 12, number 4, May, 1986) addressesthe question of what level of government should be respon-sible for the cleanup of nonpoint-source pollution.

Helpful documents released by The Farmland Project ofthe National Association of State Departments of Agricul-ture Research Foundations are found in Cooperation forClean Water. Case Studies of Agricultural Nonpoint Sc. ,-cePollution Control in the Great Lakes States, N. Bushwick, H.Hiemstra, and S. Brichford, editors. Three helpful briefingpapers from the same organization are 1."Lessons Learnedabout Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Control in the


Great Lakes Studies"; 2."Estimating Water Quality Im-provements from Management of Agricultural NonpointSource Pollution"; and 3."Institutional Issues in Agricul-tural Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Policy"

For a broad assessment of nonpoint-source issues, see:

Perspectives on Nonpoint Source Pollution, proceedings of anational conference, Kansas City, Missouri, May 19-22,

1985. Report No. EPA-440/5-85-001, Office of WaterRegulations and Standards, TJ.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency, 1985.

Proceedings of the National Retreat on Goals, Expectationsand Future Directions of State Nonpoint Source Manage-ment Programs, Association of State and InterstateWater Pollution Control Administrators, November,1984.

"Nonpoint Water Pollution," special issue of the Journal ofSoil and Water Conservation, volume 40, number 1,January-February, 1985.

Final Report on the Federal /State /Local Nonpoint SourceTask Force and Recommended National Nonpoint SourcePolicy, prepared for the Nonpoint Source Task Force bythe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofWater, January 1985, provides a helpful overview ofvarious agency strategies for dealing with nonpoint-source pollution.

9

e

Chapter 6

Drawing Up anImplementation Schedule

The 1987 nonpoint-source pollution amendment establishestight deadlines for accomplishing the actions it requires.The assessment report and draft management programmust be submitted to the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) within 18 months of the law's enactment(August 4, 1988). EPA, then, has three months to approveor disapprove it in whole or in part. If no action occurswithin this time frame, the program is assu med approved.If EPA disapproves any section of the program, the statehas three months to submit a revision.

The 1987 nonpoint amendment requires the state to sub-mit a detailed time schedule with its management program,setting forth when each of the components of the programwill be implemented. This schedule, if properly drawn up,can be one of the most effective tools citizen groups can useto monitor the program's implementation and ensure thatthe job is actually getting done. Remember that if a statedoes not meet the milestones it sets up, it will not continueto get annual grants to help implement its management. Inawarding each year's nonpoint planning grants, EPA willlook at whether the state has complied with its time line.

The schedule must include milestones for each of the fouryears of the program covering implementation of the bestmanagement practices (BMPs) discussed in chapter 4, the

87

;

_


.regulatory or assistance programs discussed in chapter 5, aswell as general tasks (for example, application for grants,hiring of staff, and spending of budgeted funds). The careand specificity used in defining these milestones will deter-mine how effectively they can be used to monitor theprogram's implementation. Is the action to be completedclearly defined? Can an observer readily determine whetherthe action has been taken or not? Milestones such as"public-participation program implemented" or "BMPsadopted by all farms where required," would be difficult tomonitor, if the public-participation program is not preciselydefined or if the types of farms ana/or BMPs are notspecified. Pushing the agency to adopt precise, clearlydefined, and easily observed milestones will help both theresponsible agencies and the public during the program im-plementation phase.

Milestones for BMPs will usually be stated as the datesby which control strategies must be in place for variouscategories of sources. These dates will probably vary for dif-ferent types of sources, since some control strategies may beeasier to implement than others. BMP milestones shouldgenerally require the installation of controls for a particularcategory of source across the state by a given date.However, the state may set different time schedules for dif-ferent watersheds depending on the severity of water-quality problems. The program should also include a dateby which sanctions will be applied if specific sources do notcomply with BMPs as required.

All the milestones should call for rapid action, but shouldnot be unreasonable. Establishing an impossible schedulemay produce little but frustration and backlash. DifferentBMPs require different time frames to be implemented.Some nonstructural approaches, for example, will requirereaching people with education and training. Others mayrequire the phasing out of old equipment and the purchaseof new. In some cases, it may be necessary for state or localgovernments to pass new laws or revise existing ones beforethe program can go forward. A time schedule that is

aDRAWING UP AN IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 89

developed with the cooperation and advice of those whoneed to comply with it has a much more realistic chance ofbeing followed. And a schedule that responds to local water-shed-specific needs, as opposed to unified statewide dead-lines, is more likely to meet with approval and ultimatecompliance.

It is, of course, important for all parties to agree on howthe success in meeting the milestones is to be measured.Because stormwater runoff patterns can vary substantiallyfrom storm to storm and year to year, it would take severalyears to measure success in terms of reduced pollutionloads. Less ambiguous, although indirect, measurementsare provided by actions taken, i.e. retention ponds built,acres planted in conservation tillage, regulations issued,funds appropriated, etc. In some cases how success shouldbe measured will be clear in the definition of the milestone.In most cases, however, there may be several possiblemeans of measurement, and the one to be used should beagreed on.

j

.14

Part IV

Implementing theManagement Program

91

J

\

Chapter 7

MonitoringImplementation and

Enforcement

After months of hard work to develop a nonpoint program,an even harder task begins: implementation. Citizen ac-tivists can make the difference between a managementprogram on paper and one in action by monitoring its im-plementation at the state level and the field. Two key ques-tions need to be considered:

Is the program being carried out on schedule, i.e., isthe state taking the steps it said it would to implementa nonpoint-source program and are those responsiblefor sources of nonpoint pollution implementing the re-quired practices?Is the program obtaining the desired results, i.e., iswater quality improving in targeted water bodies? Ifnot, what modifications of the program need to bemade?

Citizens need to stay involved while their state passesthe necessary laws, issues the necessary regulations, hiresthe necessary personnel, and acquires the necessary resour-ces to do the job, and until those responsible for identified

93

a e- ;

JL Lt 1.

O


sources of nonpoint pollution adopt the prescribed bestmanagement practices. Citizens can also help evaluate theprogram's effectiveness by helping to determine if water-quality standards are now being met where once they wereviolated because of nonpoint pollution.

WATCHING THE IMPLEMENTORS

Responsibilities for implementation should be clearlydelineated in the program. Responsibility may be dividedamong many agencies or assigned to a single entity at thestate level. Or, it could be delegated to local government orsome other sub-state body. In any case, citizens shouldoversee the overseers to make sure that the program isbeing carried out on schedule both at the state level and inthe field.

Citizens can organize to oversee program implementationthe same way they organized to participate in programdevelopment, employing many of the same techniques. Sub-groups can be formed to monitor key agencies and person-nel, pollution sources, or water bodies. Armed with theprogram and its implementation schedule, it should not bedifficult to determine if the program is being followed.Telephone calls to agency personnel and monitoring of agen-cy publications should provide you with information onwhether the state is doing what it said it would. Windshieldsurveys can be used to determine if those responsible forsources are adopting required best management practices.

Citizens who have "adopted" a stream or lake will beespecially helpful in noting the implementation of bestmanagement practices (BMPs) and progress in improvingwater quality. Landowners might be polled on their at-titudes about the final nonpoint program. This informationcould be useful t..) :.tate agencies, providing them with mereinformation on how to encourage compliance with require-ments.

The information you gather should be fed to the agencyor legislative body responsible for overseeing implementa-

MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT 95

tion. This should be done in writing wherever possible. Fol-low-up with phone calls and with a letter summarizing yourfindings. The public can especially assist the implementa-tion process by reporting cases where BMPs are not beingused or finding out why certain practices are not being ac-cepted. Even the best intentioned state agency cannot beeverywhere all the time. If implementation is going well,media coverage and telephone calls praising the efforts ofstate agencies and landowners will help reinforce continuedcompliance.

What if things are just not working out according toplan? Your investigations have uncovered major break-downs in program implementation. Perhaps the state orthose responsible for nonpoint sources are ignoring theprogram or taking unnecessarily long to comply. Or, per-haps the state is not enforcing prescribed practices in thefield even though it has the legal authority and the neces-sary resources to do the job. What do you do then?

You have at least three recourses: The first is to try toget the state to correct the problem. A telephone call to theagencies responsible for implementation may spur greateraccountability and give them the necessary public supportto enforce regulations they may otherwise let slide. It maytake more than one call, so be prepared to persist.

If that approach does not work, go to the media with thefacts. During program implementation, the media can drawattention to cases where the program is not being carriedout on schedule. For example, shrewd use of the media bycitizens in Maryland made a difference in the implementa-tion of county erosion-control requirements. They surveyedcounty construction sites for compliance with erosion-con-trol regulations and found that only 26 percent of the siteswere in compliance. They took the story to the newspapers,and the state soon found money to hire more inspectors. Sixmonths later, however, the citizens surveyed the sites againand surprisingly found that the rate of compliance had ac-tually decreased to 17 percent. It appeared that the numberof inspectors on the county payroll was not the important

96 CONTROLLING NGNPOINT-SOURCE WATER POLLUTION

factorthe degree of enforcement of erosion-control regula-tions was. After the story was fed to the press again, thecounty took its enforcement responsibilities more seriously.A follow-up survey six months later showed that the com-pliance rate was up to 60 percent. Similar tactics could beused by citizens to force compliance with a state's nonpointprogram.

Your third and final recourse is to go to court and try toget a judge to mandate either the state's compliance withthe program, if that is where the breakdown has occurred,or adoption of the required practices by those responsible fora nonpoint source. Before you undertake such action, youshould consult with a lawyer to determine if you can showthe requisite interest in the proceeding to be able to appearin court, whether you have a complaint that a court canhear, whether you should take your case to federal or statecourt, whether you have a cause of action against the partyyou are suing, and to what relief you are entitled. Litigationcan be time consuming and costly, but frequently it is theogly way to achieve enforcement of environmental laws.

IS THE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM DOING ITS JOB?

More difficult than serving as a watchdog over a timeschedule and state and source compliance with a program istracking whether the program is getting its intendedresults. Your investigation has determined that theprogram is being implemented by the state as required andthose responsible for sources are adopting the necessarypractices. But, how do you know if the program is working?Have the BMPs been effective? Is water quality improving?A dedicated citizens group can conduct a variety of activitiesto answer these questions.

Get back in your car and go to the streams with poorwater quality identified during the problem assessmentphase. Just as a windshield survey is a useful technique foridentifying water-quality problems and determining if thenecessary practices are being adopted, it can also be used to

mg.

nO


identify and evaluate the effectiveness of BMPs on pollutedwater bodies. For example, construction sites with BMPsinstalled can be inspected for signs of sediment flowing tostreams. Has fencing off a stream segment from a herd ofdairy cows helped with streambank erosion or are addition-al practices required to stabilize the bank? After a heavyrain, are oil and debris still flowing off city streets intostorm sewers or has increasing the frequency of streetcleaning abated that problem? These are just some ex-amples where observation of prescribed BMPs may be suffi-cient to determine if they are working.

In some cases, improvement may be dramatic and readilyapparent, even from your car. In others, improvement maybe more subtle and require periodic monitoring of waterquality over several years. The expertise you developed inassessing water quality during the problem identificationphase of program development and your contacts in thescientific and professional communities will help youevaluate whether water quality in degraded stream seg-ments is improving after program implementation.

Agency personnel, landowners, and citizens should allconstantly evaluate how well the nonpoint program is work-ing. If BMPs are not being implemented, or if they do notappear to be working, it may be necessary to make major orminor adjustments to the program. Even if the programwas sound at the outset, it may need to be modified inresponse to unforeseen or changing circumstances. For ex-ample, more time may be needed than was initially allo-cated to find financial assistance or to educate landownerson required BMPs.

FURTHER READING

For more information on monitoring implementation andenforcement, see Increasing the Sensitivity of NonpointSource Control Monitoring Programs (Raleigh, N.C.: NorthCarolina State University Extension Service, Water QualityGroup).

J

98 CONTROT NPOINT- SOURCE WATER POLLUTION

Tip

Being a Watchdog

Perhaps no stage of the non-point-planning process requirescitizen involvement more thanthe program implementationphase. Public apathy toward fol-low-through on a nonpoint-management program will allowthe program's importance to slipaway gradually and with it anyhope for improvement in waterquality. Citizens who areknowledgeable about themanagement program and itsgoals can help keep the interestlevel high and hold the ap-propriate parties accountable forimplementation. There areseveral ways to act as a"watchdog" over implementation:

1. Get a copy of the programas soon as it is released. Make atimetable showing the scheduleand its milestones. Distribute theprogram and timetable widely toother activists. Assign respon-sibilities for making sure eachmilestone is being met.

2. Notify the media when theprogram is released. Hold anews conference. This will drawpublic attention to nonpoint pollu-tion and may help general sup-

o

port for implementation of theprogram.

3. Develop brochures and factsheets on the managementprogram and place them in publiclibraries, schools, booths atcounty fairs, and other publicgatherings.

4. Bring to the media's atten-tion success stories as well asstories about program break-downs.

5. Hold the parties respon-sible for enforcement account-able. Again, divide up the workto make sure that someonekeeps an eye on each agencyand/or unit of government'supholding of the program.

6. Schedule seminars orworkshops on the new programfor people who will need to imple-ment BMPs. Explain the programand appropriate BMPs to them insimple terms. You may want todo this in cooperation with stateoffices.

7. Get involved in implemen-tation. Look around your area tosee who is implementing BMPsand who isn't. Find out peoples'attitudes about the nonpointprogram. Are they resisting it or


complying voluntarily? Giveawards for successful efforts.

8. Look for improvements inwater quality. Conduct follow-upwindshield surveys or tests forstream water quality. Be sure toreport all of your findings back to

the party responsible for enforce-ment.

9. Above all, stay involved inthe process. Don't let public sup-port for nonpoint pollution controlslip away.

I

Appendix A

Offices of theEnvironmental ProtectionAgency and States within

Each EPA Region

EPA HEADQUARTERS(Office of the Environmental Protection Agency responsiblefor administering the nonpoint program)

Office of Regulations and StandardsNonpoint Sources Branch (WH-585)U.S. Environmental Protection Agency401 M Street, SWWashington, D.C. 20460

(Car' F. Myers, Chief)(202) 382-7100

EPA REGIONAL OFFICESEach regional office of the Environmental Protection Agencyhas a nonpoint-source cool dinator reporting to the directorof the Waste Management Di(rision. The names and phonenumbers of these individuals are given under each office.

101


EPA Region

Region 1Water Management DivisionJohn F. Kennedy Office Bldg.Rm. 2203Boston, MA 02203(617) 565-3478

Contact: Bart Hague(617) 565-3547

Region 2Water Management Division26 Federal Plaza, Rm. 90New York, NY 10278(212) 264-2513

Contact: Rick Balla(212) 264-0711

Region 3Water Management Division841 Chestnut St.Philadelphia, PA 19107

(215) 597-9410Contact: Lynn Shuyler

Region 4Water Management Division345 Court land St., N.E.Atlanta, GA 30365(404) 347-4450

Contact: Bo Crum(404) 347-7788

States within Region

ConnecticutMaineMassachusettsNew HampshireRhode IslandVermont

New JerseyNew YorkPuerto RicoVirgin Islands

DelawareDistrict of ColumbiaMarylandPennsylvsniaVirginiaWest Virginia

AlabamaFloridaGeorgiaKentuckyMississippiNorth CarolinaSouth CarolinaTennessee

EPA Region(continued)

Region 5Water Management Division230 S. Dearborn St.Chicago, IL 60604(312) 886-0148

Contact: Tom Davenport(312) 886-0124

Region 6Water Management Division1201 Elm StreetDallas, TX 75270(214) 655-7100

Contact: Russell Bowen(214) 655-7144

Region 7Water Management Division726 Minnesota Ave.Kansas City, KS 66101(913) 236-2812

Contact: Bob Steiert(913) 236-2817

Region 8Water Management Division999 18th St., Suite 1300Denver, CO 80202(303) 293-1542

Contact: Roger Dean Wyoming(303) 293-1571

APPENDIX A 103

States within Region(continued)

IllinoisIndianaMichiganMinnesotaOhioWisconsin

ArkansasLouisianaNew MexicoOklahomaTexas

IowaKansasMissouriNebraska

ColoradoMontanaNorth DakotaSouth DakotaUtah


EPA Region(continued)

Region 9Water Management Division215 Fremont St.San Francisco, CA 94105(415) 974-8115

Contact: Kathryn Kuhlman(415) 974-8285

Region 10Water Division1200 Sixth AvenueSeattle, WA 98101(206) 442-1237

Contact: Elbert Moore(206) 442-4181

States within Region(continued)

ArizonaCaliforniaHawaiiNevadaAmerican SamoaGuam

AlaskaIdahoOregonWashington

Appendix 13

State Water PollutionControl Agencies

For each state listed below is an agency with responsibilitiesfor water pollution control. Call the contact provided, or callthe main agency number and ask for the name of a staffmember who is knowledgeable about nonpoint-pollutioncontrol. This one phone call will eventually lead to a usefullist of agency contacts.

AlabamaDepartment of Environmental Management1751 Federal DriveMontgomery, Alabama 36130(205) 271-7700

Contact: Steven Jenkins, ChiefMining/Agriculture Section(205) 271-7839

AlaskaDivision of Environmental QualityP.O. Box 0Juneau, Alaska 99811(907) 465-2610

Contact: Doug Redburn

105

112


ArizonaDepartment of Environmental Quality1740 W. Adams StreetPhoenix, Arizona 85007(602) 255-1024

Contact: Ronald L. MillerOffice of Water Quality(602) 257-2305

ArkansasDepartment of Pollution Control and Ecology8001 National DriveP.O. Box 9583Little Rock, Arkansas 72219(501) 562-7444

Contact: Vince Blubaugh

CaliforniaThe Resources AgencyWater Resources Control Board901 P StreetP.O. Box 100Sacramento, California 95801(916) 445-3993

Contact: James L. Easton, Executive Director

ColoradoDepartment of Health4210 E. 11th AvenueDenver, Colorado 80220

Contact: Paul Ferraro, DirectorWater Quality Control Division(303) 331-4534

113

u.

APPENDIX B 107

ConnecticutDepartment of Environmental ProtectionWater Compliance Unit122 Washington StreetHartford, Connecticut 06106

Contact: Fred Banach(203) 566-3439

DelawareDepartment of Natural Resourcesand Environmental Control89 Kings HighwayP.O. Box 1401Dover, Delaware 19903(302) 736-4506

Contact: R. Wayne Ashbee, DirectorDivision of Water Resources

District of ColumbiaDepartment of Public Works2000 14th Street, NWWashington, D.C. 20009

Contact: Wallace White, AdministratorWater and Sewer Utility Administration(202) 767-7651

FloridaDepartment of Environmental Regulation2600 Blairstone RoadTallahassee, Florida 32301(904) 488-4805

Contact: Eric H. LivingstonNonpoint Source Management(904) 488-0782

1.1


GeorgiaEnvironmental Protection Division148 International Blvd.Suite 350Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Contact: Jim ChandlerWater Quality Management Program(404) 656-4905

HawaiiDepartment of HealthP.O. Box 3378Honolulu, Hawai 96801(808) 548-6355

Contact: Dr. John Lewin, Director(808) 548-4139

IdahoDepartment of Water ResourcesStatehouseBoise, Idaho 83720

Contact: Susan Martin(208) 334-5845

IllinoisIllinois Environmental Protection Agency2200 Churchill RoadSpringfield, Illinois 62706(217) 782-3397

Contact: Toby FrevertWater Pollution Control(217) 782-3362

APPENDIX B 109

IndianaDepartment of Natural Resources608 State Office Bldg.Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

Contact: John WintersDivision of Water(317) 663-0808

IowaDepartment of Natural ResourcesE. Ninth and Grand AvenueWallace Bldg.Des Moines, Iowa 50319(515) 281-8666

Contact: Darrell McAllister, Chief,Surface and Groundwater Protection BureauEnvironmental Protection Division(515) 281-8869

KansasState Department of Health and EnvironmentForbes Field, Bldg. 740Topeka, Kansas 66620

Contact: Karl MueldenerBureau of Water Protection(913) 296-5508

KentuckyDepartment for Environmental ManagementFort Boone Plaza18 Reilly RoadFrankfort, Kentucky 40601

Contact: Maureen Mender(502) 564-3410, ext. 475


LouisianaWater Pollution Control DivisionLouisiana Dept. of Environmental QualityP.O.Box 44091Capitol StationBaton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-4091(504) 342-6363

Contact: Roger Hartzog

MaineEnvironmental Evaluation and Lake StudiesBureau of Water Quality ControlDepartment of Environmental ProtectionState House, Station 17Augusta, Maine 04333(207) 289-3901

Contact: Matthew Scott, Director

MarylandDepartment of Health and Mental HygieneOffice of Environmental Programs201 W. Preston StreetBaltimore, Maryland 21201(301) 225-5750

Contact: Richard Sellars, DirectorWater Management

MassachusettsDivision of Water Pollution ControlTechnical Services BranchWestview Building/Lyman SchoolWestborough, Massachusetts 01581(617) 366-9181

Contact: Eben Chesebrough

APPENDIX B 111

MichiganDepartment of Natural ResourcesBox 30028Lansing, Michigan 48909(517) 373-1220

Contact: Dennis Swanson(517) 335-4171

MinnesotaPollution Control Agency520 Lafayette Road, NorthSt. Paul, Minnesota 55155

Contact: Curt Sparks(612) 297-1831

MississippiDepartment of Natural ResourcesBureau of Pollution ControlP.O. Box 10385Jackson, Mississippi 39209(601) 961-5171

Contact: Robert Seyfarth, CoordinatorWater Quality Management(601) 961-5171

MissouriDepartment of Natural ResourcesP.O. Box 176Jefferson City, Missouri 65102(314) 751-3332 ortoll-free (800) 334-6946

Contact: Charles Stiefermann, Staff DirectorWater Pollution Control Program(314) 751-1300

113


MontanaState Department of Health and Environmental SciencesCogswell Bldg., Capitol StationHelena, Montana 59620(406) 444-2544

Contact: Steve Pilcher, ChiefWater Quality BureauDivision of Environmental Sciences(406) 444-2406

NebraskaDepartment of Environmental ControlState House StationBox 94877Lincoln, Nebraska 68509(402) 471-2186

Contact: Gale Hutton, ChiefWater Quality Division(402) 471-4220

NevadaDepartment of Conservation and Natural ResourcesCapitol Complex, Nye Bldg.201 S. Fall StreetCarson City, Nevada 89710(702) 885-4360

Contact: Lewis H. Dodgion, AdministratorDivision of Environmental Protection(702) 885-4670

New HampshireWater Supply and Pollution Control CommissionHazen Drive, Box 95Concord, New Hampshire 03301(603) 271-2358

Contact: Fred Elkind, DirectorWater Quality Management Planning

APPENDIX B 113

New JerseyDepartment of Environmental Protection, CN 029Trenton, New Jersey 08625(609) 984-5855

Contact: George Horzepa, ChiefBureau of Water Resources Management PlanningDivision of Water Resources

New MexicoEnvironmental Improvement DivisionP.O. Box 968Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504(505) 827-2793

Contact: Kathleen SisnerosSurface Water Quality Bureau

New YorkDepartment of Environmental Conservation50 Wolf RoadAlbany, New York 12233-0001

Contact: Philip DeGaetano, DirectorBureau of Water QualityDivision of Water(518) 457-6956

North CarolinaDivision of Environmental ManagementP.O. Box 27687Raleigh, North Carolina 27611(919) 733-4984

Contact: Alan Klimek(919) 733-5083

1 '- ,1. (0


North DakotaDepartment of HealthBismarck, North Dakota 58505

Contact: Francis Schwindt, DirectorDivision of Water Supply and Pollution Control(701) 224-2354

OhioEnvironmental Protection AgencyP.O. Box 1049361 E. Broad StreetColumbus, Ohio 43216(614) 466-8565

Contact: Carl Wilhelm(614) 481-2131

OklahomaConservation Commission2800 N. Lincoln Blvd., Suite 160Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105(405) 521-2384

Contact: John Hassell, DirectorWater Quality Program

OregonDepartment of Environmen' 11 Quality522 SW Fifth AvenueP.O. Box 1760Portland, Oregon 97207

Contact: John JacksonWater Quality(503) 229-6035

1 r .

APPENDIX B 115

PennsylvaniaDepartment of Environmental ResourcesPress Office, 9th Floor, Fulton Bldg.Box 2063Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120

Contact: Dennis Capella, DirectorBureau of Water Quality Management(717) 787-2666

'Rhode IslandDepartment of Environmental Management83 Park StreetProvidence, Rhode Island 02903(401) 277-3961

Contact: Chris DeacutisDivision of Water Resources

South CarolinaDepartment of Health and Environmental Control2600 Bull StreetColumbia, South Carolina 29201

Contact: Chester Sansbury, DirectorDivision of Water Quality(803) 734--5312

South DakotaDepartment of Water and Natural ResourcesJoe Foss Office Bldg.Pierre, South Dakota 57501(605) 773-3151

Contact: Mark Steichen(605) 773-4854

-I-


TennesseeDepartment of Health and Environment510 9th Avenue NT.E.R.R.A. BuildingNashville, Tennessee 37219-5404

Contact: Andrew N. BarrassDivision of Construction Grants and Loans(615) 741-0638

TexasTeAas Water Development BoardWater CommissionP.O. Box 13087Capitol StationAustin, Texas 78711-3087(512) 463-8028

Contact: Dick McVey(512) 475-4514

UtahDivision of Environmental Health288 North 1460 WestP.O. Box 16690Salt Lake City, Utah 84116-0690

Contact: Don Ostler, DirectorBureau of Water Pollution Control(801) 538-6146

VermontAgency of Environmental Conservation103 South Main StreetWaterbury, Vermont(802) 244-6916

Contact: Stephen Syz, ChiefWater Resources Planning(802) 244-6951

APPENDIX B 117

VirginiaState Water Control Board2111 N. Hamilton StreetP.O. Box 11143Richmond, Virginia 23230(804) 257-0056

Contact: Richard N. Burton, Executive Director

WashingtonDepartment of EcologyMail Stop PV-11Olympia, Washington 98504(206) 459-6000

Contact: Bob MonnWater Quality(206) 459-6070

West VirginiaDepartment of Natural Resources1800 Washington Street, EastCharleston, West Virginia 25305(304) 348-2754

Contact: David W. Robinson, Chief of Water Resources(328-2107)

WisconsinDepartment of Natural ResourcesBox 7921Madison, Wisconsin 53707(608) 266-2621

Contact: Mike Llewelyn(608) 266-9254


WyomingDepartment of Environmental Quality122 W. 25th StreetCheyenne, Wyoming 82002(307) 777-7781

Contact: William L. Garland, Water Quality Division

Appendix C

Nonpoint-SourceProvisions in the Water

Quality Act of 1987

SUBJECT

Section 319

Creates new Sec. 319 on NPS ManagementPrograms

SEC. 316. MANAGEMENT OF NONPOINT SOURCESOF POLLUTION.

(a) In GeneralTitle III is amended by adding at theend the following new section:

"SEC. 319. NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENTPROGRAMS.

Contents of State Assessment Reports

"(a) State Assessment Reports."(1) CONTENTS.The Governor of each State shall,

after notice and opportunity for public comment, prepareand submit to 0-Le Administrator for approval, a reportwhich-

119


"(A) identifies those navigable waters within theState which, without additional action to controlnonpoint sources of pollution, cannot reasonably beexpected to attain or maintain applicable waterquality standards or the goals and requirements ofthis Act;

"(B) identifies those ce,:;,:gories and subcategoriesof nonpoint sources or, where appropriate, particularnonpoint sources which add significant pollution toeach portion of the navigable waters identified undersubparagraph (A) in amounts which contribute tosuch portion not meeting such water quality stand-ards or such goals and requirements;

"(C) describes the process, including inter-governmental coordination and public participation,for identifying best management practices andmeasures to control each category and subcategory ornonpoint sources and, where appropriate, particularnonpoint sources identified under subparagraph (B)and to reduce, to the maximum extent practicable,the level of pollution resulting from such category,subcategory, or source; and

"(D) identifies and describes State and localprograms for controlling pollution added from non-point sources to, and improving the quality of, eachsuch portion of the navigable waters, including butnot limited to those programs which are receivingFederal assistance under subsections (h) and (i).

information used to prepare State Assessment Report

"(2) INFORMATION USED IN PREPARATION.Indeveloping the report required by this section, the State(A) may rely upon information developed pursuant tosections 208, 303(e), 304(f), 305(b), and 314, and otherinformation as appropriate, and (B) may utilize ap-propriate elements of the waste treatment managementplans developed pursuant to sections 208(b) and 303, to

r.)I

APPENDIX C 121

the extent such elements are consistent with and fulfillthe requirements of this section.

Contents of State Management Programs

"(b) STATE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS."(1) IN GENERAL.The Governor of each State, for

that State or in combination with adjacent States, shall,after notice and opportunity for public comment, prepareand submit to the Administrator for approval a manage-ment program which such State proposes to implementin the first four fiscal years beginning after the date ofsubmission of such management program for controllingpollution added from nonpoint sources to the navigablewaters within the State and improving the quality ofsuch waters.

"(2) SPECIFIC CONTENTS.Each managementprogram proposed for implementation under this subsec-tion shall include each of the following:

"(A) An identification of the best managementpractices and measures which will be undertaken toreduce pollutant loadings resul.cang from eachcategory, subcategory, or particular nonpoint sourcedesignated under paragraph (1)(B), taking into ac-count the impact of the practice on ground waterquality.

"(B) An identification of programs (including, asappropriate, nonregulatory or regulatory programsfor enforcement, technical assistance, financial assis-tance, education, training, technology transfer, anddemonstration projects) to achieve implementation ofthe best management practices by the categories,subcategories, and particular nonpoint sources desig-nated under subparagraph (A).

"(C) A schedule containing annual milestones for(i) utilization of the program implementationmethods identified in subparagraph (B), and (ii) im-plementation of the best management practices iden-


tified in subparagraph (A) by the categories, sub-categories, or particular nonpoint sources designatedunder paragraph (1XB). Such schedule shall providefor utilization of the best management practices atthe earliest practicable date.

"(D) A certification of the attorney general of theState or States (or the chief attorney of any Statewater pollution control agency which has inde-pendent legal counsel) that the laws of the State orStates, as the case may be, provide adequateauthority to implement such management programor, if there is not such adequate authority, a list ofsuch additional authorities as will be necessary toimplement such management program. A scheduleand commitment by the State or States to seek suchadditional authorities as expeditiously as practicable.

"(E) Sources of Federal and other assistance andfunding (other than assistance provided under sub-sections (h) and (i)) which will be available in each ofsuch fiscal years for supporting implementation ofsuch practices and measures and the purposes forwhich such assistance will be used in each of suchfiscal years.

"(F) An identification of Federal financial assis-tance programs and Federal development projects forwhich the State will review individual assistance ap-plications or development projects for their effect onwater quality pursuant to the procedures set forth inExecutive Order 12372 as in effect on September 17,1983, to determine whether such assistance applica-tions or development projects would be consistentwith the program prepared under this subsection; forthe purposes of this subparagraph, identificationshall not be limited to the assistance programs ordevelopment projects subject to Executive Order12372, but may include any programs listed in themost recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistancewhich may have an effect on the purposes and objec-

4.,

APPENDIX C 123

tives of the State's nonpoint source pollutionmanagement program.

Other requirements for State Assessment /ManagementPrograms

Use of local and private experts

"(3) UTILIZATION OF LOCAL AND PRIVATE EX-PERTS.In developing and implementing a manage-ment program under this subsection, a State shall, tothe maximum extent practicable, involve local publicand private agencies and organizations which have ex-pertise in control of nonpoint sources of pollution.

Emphasis on watershed-by-watershed basis

"(4) DEVELOPMENT ON WATERSHED BASIS.AState shall, to the maximum extent practicable, developand implement a management program under this sub-section on a watershed-by-watershed basis within suchState.

Cooperation Requirement

"(c) ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS."(1) COOPERATION REQUIREMENT.Any report

required by subsection (a) and any managementprogram and report required by subsection (b) shall bedeveloped in cooperation with local, substate regional,and interstate entities which are actively planning forthe implementation of nonpoint source pollution controlsand have either been certified by the Administrator inaccordance with section 208, have worked jointly withthe state on water quality management planning undersection 205(j), or have been designated by the Statelegislative body or Governor as water quality manage-ment planning agencies for their geographic areas.


Time frame for State submittal of Report/ ManagementProgram

"(2) TIME PERIOD FOR SUBMISSION OFREPORTS AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.--Eachreport and management program shall be submitted tothe Administrator during the 18-month period beginningon the date of the enactment of this section.

Time frame for EPA approval of State Reports I Manage-ment Programs

"(d) APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF REPORTSAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.

"(1) DEADLINE.Subject to paragraph (2), not laterthan 180 days after the date of submission to the Ad-ministrator of any report or management program underthis section (other than subsections (h), (i), and (k)), theAdministrator shall either approve or disapprove suchreport or management program, as the case may be.The Administrator may approve a portion of a manage-ment program under this subsection. If the Ad-mini,i,rator does not disapprove a report, managementprogram, or portion of a management program in such180-day period, such report, management program, orportion shall be deemed approved for purposes of thissection.

Procedure for EPA disapproval and criteria for disap-proval

"(2) PROCEDURE FOR DISAPPROVAL.If, afternotice and opportunity for public comment and consult-ation with appropriate Federal and State agencies andother interested persons, the Administrator determinesthat

"(A) the proposed management program or anyportion does not meet the requirements of subsection

APPENDIX C 125

(bX2) of this section or is not likely to satisfy, inwhole or in part, the goals and requirements of thisAct;

"(B) adequate authority does not exist, or ade-quate resources are not available, to implement suchprogram or portion;

"(C) the schedule for implementing such programor portion is not sufficiently expeditious; or

"(D) the practices and measures proposed in suchprogram or portion are not adequate to reduce thelevel of pollution in navigable waters in the Stateresulting from nonpoint sources and to improve thequality of navigable waters in the State;

the Administrator shall within 6 months of the receipt ofthe proposed program notify the State of any revisions ormodifications necessary to obtain approval. The Stateshall thereupon have an additional 3 months to submitits revised management program and the Administratorshall approve or disapprove such revised program withinthree months of receipt.

What if State fails to submit an Assessment Report?

"(3) FAILURE OF STATE TO SUBMIT REPORT.If a Governor of a State does not submit the report re-quired by subsection (a) within the period specified bysub-section (cX2), the Administrator shall, within 30months after the date of the enactment of this section,prepare a report for such State which makes the iden-tifications required by paragraphs (I)(A) and (1XB) ofsubsection (a). Upon completion of the requirement ofthe preceding sentence and after notice and opportunityfor comment, the Administrator' shall report to Congresson his actions pursuant to this section.


What if State fails to submit a Management Program?

"(e) LOCAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS; TECH-NICAL ASSISTANCE.If a State fails to submit amanagement program under subsection (b) or the Ad-ministrator does not approve such a managementprogram, a local public agency or organization which hasexpertise in, and authority to, control water pollutionresulting from nonpoint sources in any area of suchState which the Administrator determines is of suffi-cient geographic size may, with approval of such State,request the Administrator to provide, and the Ad-ministrator shall provide, technical assistance to suchagency or organization in developing for such area amanagement program which is described in subsection(b) and can be approved pursuant to subsection (d).After development of such management program, suchagency or organization shall submit such managementprogram to the Administrator for approval. If the Ad-ministrator approves such management program, suchagency or organization shall be eligible to receive finan-cial assistance under subsection (h) for implementationof such management program as if such agency or or-ganizadon were a State for which a report submittedunder subsection (a) and a management program sub-mitted under subsection (b) were approved under thissection. Such financial assistance shall be subject to thesame terms and conditions as assistance provided to aState under subsection (h).

EPA Technical Assistance

"(f) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR STATES.Upon request of a State, the Administrator may providetechnical assistance to such State in developing amanagement program approved under subsection (b) forthose portions of the navigable waters requested by suchState.

133

APPENDIX C 127

Interstate Management Conference

"(g) INTERSTATE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE."(1) CONVENING OF CONFERENCE; NOTIFICA-

TION; PURPOSE.If any portion of the navigablewaters in any State which is implementing a manage-ment program approved under this section is not meet-ing applicable water quality standards or the goals andrequirements of this Act as a result, in whole or in part,of pollution from nonpoint sources in another State, suchState may petition the Administrator to convene, andthe Administrator shall convene, a management con-ference of all States which contribute significant pollu-tion resulting from nonpoint sources to such portion. If,

on the basis of information available, the Administratordetermines that a State is not meeting applicable waterquality standards or the goals and requirements of thisAct as a result, in whole or in part, of significant pollu-tion from nonpoint sources in another State, the Ad-ministrator shall notify such States. The Administratormay convene a management conference under thisparagraph not later than 180 days after giving suchnotification, whether or not the State which is not meet-ing such standards requests such conference. The pur-pose of such conference shall be to develop an agreementamong such States to reduce the level of pollution insuch portion resulting from nonpoint sources and to im-prove the water quality of such portion. Nothing in suchagreement shall supersede or abrogate rights to quan-tities of water which have been established by interstatewater compacts, Supreme Court decrees, or State waterlaws. This subsection shall not apply to any pollutionwhich is subject to the Colorado River Basin SalinityControl Act. The requirement that the Administratorconvene a management conference shall not be subjectto the provisions of section 505 of this Act.

"(2) STATE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM REQUIRE-MENT.To the extent that the States reach agreement

1.)4


through such conference, the management programs ofthe States which are parties to such agreements andwhich contribute significant pollution to the navigablewaters or portions thereof not meeting applicable waterquality standards or goals and requirements of this Actwill be revised to reflect such agreement. Such manage-ment programs shall be consistent with Federal andState law.

Requirements for grants under Sec. 319(h)

Assessment /Management Program must be approved

"(h) GRANT PROGRAM."(1) GRANTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF

MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.Upon application of aState for which a report submitted under subsection (a)and a management program submitted under subsection(b) is approved under this section, the Administratorshall make grants, subject to such terms and. conditionsas the Administrator considers appropriate, under thissubsection to such State for the purpose of assisting theState in implementing such management program.Funds reserved pursuant to section 205(jX5) of this Actmay be used to develop and implement such manage-ment program.

"(2) APPLICATIONS.An application for a grantunder this subsection in any fiscal year shall be in suchform and shall contain such other information as the Ad-ministrator may require, including an identification anddescription of the best management practices andmeasures which the State proposes to assist, encourage,or require in such year with the Federal assistance to beprovided under the grant.

APPENDIX C 129

Federal share not to exceed 60%

"(3) FEDERAL SHARE.The Federal share of thecost of each management program implemented withFederal assistance under this subsection in any fiscalyear shall not exceed 60 percent of the cost incurred bythe State in implementing such management programand shall be made on condition that the non-Federalshare is provided from non-Federal sources.

No more than 15% of the authorization for this subsec-tion may go to one State

"(4) LIMITATION ON GRANT AMOUNTS.Not-withstanding any other provision of this subsection, notmore than 15 percent of the amount appropriated tocarry out this sub-section may be used to make grants toany one State, including any grants to any local publicagency or organization with authority to control pollu-tion from nonpoint sources in any area of such State.

Priority considerations for Sec. 319(h) grants

"(5) PRIORITY FOR EFFECTIVE MECHANISMS.For each fiscal year beginning after September 30, 1987,the Administrator may give priority in making grantsunder this subsection, and shall give consideration indetermining the Federal share of any such grant, toStates which have implemented or are proposing to im-plement management programs whi,th. will

"(A) control particularly difficult or serious non-point source pollution problems, including, but notlimited to, problems resulting from mining activities;

"(B) implement innovative methods or practicesfor controlling nonpoint source. of pollution, includ-ing regulatory programs where the Administratordeems appropriate;

-1 r-,A. t;


"(C) control interstate nonpoint source pollutionproblems; or

"(D) carry out ground water quality protection ac-tivities which the Administrator determines are partof a comprehensive nonpoint source pollution controlprogram, including research, planning, ground waterassessments, demonstration programs, enforcement,technical assistance, education, and training toprotect ground water quality from nonpoint sourcesof pollution.

Availability for obligation

"(6) AVAILABILITY FOR OBLIGATION.Thefunds granted to each State pursuant to this subsectionin a fiscal year shall remain available for obligation bysuch State for the fiscal year for which appropriated.The amount of any such funds not obligated by the endof such fiscal year shall be available to the Ad-ministrator for granting to other States under this sub-section in the next fiscal year.

Financial assistance to individuals only for costs relatedto demonstration projects

"(7) LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS.Statesmay use funds from grants made pursuant to this sec-tion for financial assistance to persons only to the extentthat such assistance is related to the costs of demonstra-tion projects.

Satisfactory progress

"(8) SATISFACTORY PROGRESS.No grant maybe made under this subsection in any fiscal year to aState which in the preceding fiscal year received a grantunder this subsection unless the Administrator deter-mines that such State made satisfactory progress in

APPENDIX C 131

such preceding fiscal year in meeting the schedulespecified by such State under subsection (b)(2).

Maintenance of effort

"(9) MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT.No grant maybe made to a State under this subsection in any fiscalyear unless such State enters into such agreements withthe Administrator as the Administrator may require toensure that such State will maintain its aggregate ex-penditures from all other sources for programs for con-trolling pollution added to the navigable waters in suchState from nonpoint sources and improving the qualityof such waters at or above the average level of such ex-penditures in its two fiscal years preceding the date ofenactment of this subsection.

Pequest for information

"(10) REQUEST FOR INFORMATION.The Ad-ministrator may request such information, data, andreports as he considers necessary to make the deter-mination of continuing eligibility for grants underthis section.

Annual State reports required

"(11) REPORTING AND OTHER REQUIRE-MENTS.Each State shall report to the Administratoron an annual basis concerning (A) its progress in meet-ing the schedule of milestones submitted pursuant tosubsection (b)(2)(C) of this section, and (B) to the extentthat appropriate information is available, reductions innonpoint source pollutant loading and improvements inwater quality for those navigable waters or watershedswithin the State which were identified pursuant to sub-section (a)(1)(A) of this section resulting from implemen-tation of the management program.

133


Limitation on administrative costs (shall not exceed 10%)

"(12) LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVECOSTS.For purposes of this subsection, administra-tive costs in the form of salaries, overhead, or indirectcosts for services provided and charged against activitiesand programs carried out with a grant under this sub-section shall not exceed in any fiscal year 10 percent ofthe amount of the grant in such year, except that costs ofimplementing enforcement and regulatory activities,education, training, technical assistance, demonstrationprojects, and technology transfer programs shall not besubject to this limitation.

Requirements for grants under Sec. 319W for protectinggroundwater quality

Eligible applicants and activities

"(i) GRANTS FOR PROTECTING GROUNDWATERQUALITY.

"(1) ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS AND ACTIVITIES.Upon application of a State for which a report submittedunder subsection (a) and a plan submitted under subsec-tion (b) is approved under this section, the Ad-ministrator shall make grants under this subsection tosuch State for the purpose of assisting such State in car-rying out groundwater quality protection activitieswhich the Administrator determines will advance theState toward implementation of a comprehensive non-point source pollution control program. Such activitiesshall include, but not be limited to, research, planning,groundwater assessments, demonstration programs, en-forcement, technical assistance, education and trainingto protect the quality of groundwater and to prevent con-tamination of groundwater from nonpoint sources of pol-lution.

APPENDIX C 133

"(2) APPLICATIONS.An application for a grantunder this subsection shall be in such form and shallcontain such information as the Administrator may re-quire.

Federal share not to exceed 50%

"(3) FEDERAL SHARE; MAXIMUM AMOUNT.The Federal share of the cost of assisting a State in car-rying out groundwater protection activities in any fiscalyear under this subsection shall be 50 percent of thecosts incurred by the State in carrying out such ac-tivities, except that the maximum amount of Federal as-sistance which any State may receive under this subsec-tion in any fiscal year shall not exceed $150,000.

"(4) REPORT.The Administrator shall include ineach report transmitted under subsection (n) a reporton the activities and programs implemented under thissubsection during the preceding fiscal year.

Authorizations for Sec. 319(h) and (i)

"(j) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out sub-sections (h) and (1) not to exceed $70,000,000 for fiscalyear 1988, $100,000,000 per fiscal year for each of fiscalyears 1989 and 1990, and $130,000,000 for fiscal year1991; except that for each of such fiscal years not to ex-ceed $7,500,000 may be made available to carry out sub-section (i). Sums appropriated pursuant to this subsec-tion shall remain available until expended.

EPA required to compile information regarding federalprograms I projects

"(k) CONSISTENCY OF OTHER PROGRAMS ANDPROJECTS WITH MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.TheAdministrator shall transmit to the Office of Manage-


went and Budget and the appropriate Federal depart-ments and agencies a list of those assistance programsand development projects identified by each State undersubsection (b)(2)(F) for which individual assistance ap-plications and projects will be reviewed pursuant to theprocedures set forth in Executive Order 12372 as in ef-fect on September 17, 1983. Beginning not later thansixty days after receiving notification by the Ad-ministrator, each Federal department and agency shallmodify existing regulations to allow States to review in-dividual development projects and assistance applica-tions under the identified Federal assistance programsand shall accommodate, according to the requirementsand definitions of Executive Order 12372, as in effect onSeptember 17, 1983, the concerns of the State regardingthe consistency of such applications or projects with theState nonpoint source pollution management program.

EPA required to compile information on BMPs

"(1) COLLECTION OF INFORMATION.The Ad-ministrator shall collect and make available, throughpublications and other appropriate means, informationpertaining to management practices and implementa-tion methods, including, but not limited to, (1) informa-tion concerning the costs and relative efficiencies of bestmanagement practices for reducing nonpoint source pol-lution; and (2) available data concerning the relationshipbetween water quality and implementation of variousmanagement practices to control nonpoint sources of pol-lution.

EPA annual reports required

"(m) REPORTS OF ADMINISTRATOR."(1) ANNUAL REPORTS. Not later than January

1, 1988, and each January 1 thereafter, the Ad-ministrator shall transmit to the Committee on Public

1

APPENDIX C 135

Works and Transportation of the House of Representa-tives and the Committee on Environment and PublicWorks of the Senate, a report for the preceding fiscalyear on the activities and programs implemented underthis section and the progress made in reducing pollutionin the navigable waters resulting from nonpoint sourcesand improving the quality of such waters.

EPA final report required

"(2) FINAL REPORT.Not later than January 1,1990, the Administrator shall transmit to Congress afinal report on the activities carried out under this sec-tion. Such report, at a minimum, shall

"(A) describe the management programs beingimplemented by the States by types and amount ofaffected navigable waters, categories and sub-categories of nonpoint sources, and types of bestmanagement practices being implemented;

"(B) describe the experiences of the States in ad-hering to schedules and implementing best manage-ment practices;

"(C) describe the amount and purpose of grantsawarded pursuant to subsections (h) and (i) of thissection;

"(D) identify, to the extent that information isavailable, the progress made in reducing pollutantloads and improving water quality in the navigablewaters;

"(E) indicate what further actions need to betaken to attain and maintain in those navigablewaters (i) applicable water quality standards, and (ii)the goals and requirements of this Act;

"(F) include recommendations of the Ad-ministrator concerning future programs (includingenforcement programs) for controlling pollution fromnonpoint sources; and


"(G) identify the activities and programs ofdepartments, agencies, and instrumentalities of theUnited States which are inconsistent with themanagement programs submitted by the States andrecommend modifications so that such activities andprograms are consistent with and assist the States inimplementation of such management programs.

EPA staffing levels

"(n) SET ASIDE FOR ADMINISTRATIVEPERSONNEL.--Not less than 5 percent of the fundsappropriated pursuant to subsection (j) for any fiscal yearshall be available to the Administrator to maintainpersonnel levels at the Environmental Protection Agency atlevels which are adequate to carry out this section in suchyear."

Policy for control of NPS pollution

(b) POLICY FOR CONTROL OF NONPOINTSOURCES OF POLLUTION.--Section 101(a) is amended bystriking out "and" at the end of paragraph (5), by strikingout the period at the end of paragraph (6) and inserting inlieu thereof ";and", and by adding at the end thereof thefollowing:

"(7) it is the national policy that programs for thecontrol of nonpoint sources of pollution be developed andimplemented in an expeditious manner so as to enablethe goals of this Act to be met through the control ofboth point and nonpoint sources of pollution."

Construction grant set-asides

Governor's discretionary set-aside for Sec. 201(g)(1)

(c) ELIGIBILITY OF NONPOINT SOURCES. The lastsentence of section 201(g)(1) is amended by-

APPENDIX C 137

(1) striking out "sentence," the first place it appearsand inserting in lieu thereof "sentences,";

(2) inserting "(A)" after "October 1, 984, for"; and(3) inserting before "except that" the following: "and

(B) any purpose for which a grant may be made undersections 319(h) and (i) of this Act (including any innova-tive and alternative approaches for the control of non-point sources of pollution),".

Sec. 205(/)(5)

(d) RESERVATION OF FUNDS.Section 205(j) isamended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

"(5) NONPOINT SOURCE RESERVATION.In ad-dition to the sums reserved under paragraph (1), the Ad-ministrator shall reserve each fiscal year for each State1 percent of the sums allotted and available for obliga-tion to such State under this section for each fiscal yearbeginning on or after October 1, 1986, or $100,000,whichever is greater, for the purpose of carrying out sec-tion 319 of this Act. Sums so reserved in a State in anyfiscal year for which such State does not request the useof such sums, to the extent such sums exceed $100,000,may be used by such State for other purposes under thistitle".

Conforming amendments

(e) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.Section 304(k)(1)is amended by inserting "and nonpoint source pollutionmanagement programs approved under section 319 of thisAct" after "208 of this Act".


Other Miscellaneous NPS Provisions:

SEC. 212. STATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROLREVOLVING FUNDS

"SEC. 603. WATER POLLUTION CONTROLREVOLVING LOAN FUNDS"

..."(c) PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR ASSISTANCE.- -Theamounts of funds available to each State water pollutioncontrol revolving fund shall be used only for providingfinancial assistance (1) to any municipality, intermunicipal,interstate, or State agency for construction of publiclyowned treatment works (as defined in section 212 of thisAct), (2) for the implementation of a management programestablished under section 319 of this Act, and (3) fordevelopment and implementation of a conservation andmanagement plan under section 320 of this Act. The fundshall be established, maintained, and credited withrepayments, and the fund balance shall be available inperpetuity for providing such financial assistance.

..."(f) CONSISTENCY WITH PLANNINGREQUIREMENTS.A State may provide financialassistance from its water pollution control revolving fundonly with respect to a project which is consistent with plans,if any, developed under sections 205(j), 208, 303(e), 319, and320 of this Act.

"SEC. 606 AUDITS, REPORTS, AND FISCALCONTROLS; INTENDED USE PLAN'

..."(c) INTENDED USE PLAN.After providing forpublic comment and review, each State shall annuallyprepare a plan identifying the intended uses of the amountsavailable to its water pollution control revolving fund. Suchintended use plan shall include, but not be limited to

"(1) a list of those projects for construction of publiclyowned treatment works on the State's priority listdeveloped pursuant to section 216 of this Act and a list

APPENDIX C 139

of activities eligible for assistance under sections 319and 320 of this Act;

"(2) a description of the short- and long-term goalsand objectives of its water pollution control revolvingfund;

"(3) information on the activities to be supported, in-cluding a description of project categories, discharge re-quirements under titles III and IV of this Act, terms offinancial assistance, and communities served;

"(4) assurances and specific proposals for meeting therequirements of paragraphs (3), (4), (5), and (6) of sec-tion 602(b) of this Act; and

"(5) the criteria and method established for the dis-tribution of funds.

SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS"(e) RURAL CLEAN WATER..Section 208(j)(9) is

amended by striking out "and" after "1981," and by insertingafter "1982," the following: "and such sums as may benecessary for fiscal years 1983 through ] 990,".

SEC. 503. AGRICULTURAL STORMWATERDISCHARGES

Section 502(14) (relating to the definition of pointsource) is amended by inserting after "does not include" thefollowing: "agricultural stormwater discharges and".

SEC. 506. INDIAN TRIBES"(d) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.In order to

ensure the consistent implementation of the requirementsof this Act, an Indian tribe and the State or States in whichthe lands of such tribe are located may enter into acooperative agreement, subject to the review and approvalof the Administrator, to jointly plan and administer therequirements of this Act.

"(e) TREATMENT AS STATES.The Administrator isauthorized to treat an Indian tribe as a State for purposes oftitle II and sections 104, 106, 303, 305, 308, 309, 314, 319,

14.

1 '-


401, 402, and 404 of this Act to the degree necessary tocarry out the objectives of this section, but only if

"(1) the Indian tribe has a governing body carryingout substantial governmental duties and powers;

"(2) the functions to be exercised by the Indian tribepertain to the management and protection of waterresources which are held by an Indian tribe, held by theUnited States in trust for Indians, held by a member ofan Indian tribe if such property interest is subject to atrust restriction on alienation, or otherwise within theborders of an Indian reservation; and

"(3) the Indian tribe is reasonably expected to becapable, in the Administrator's judgment, of carrying outthe functions to be exercised in a manner consistentwith the terms and purposes of this Act and of all ap-plicable regulations.Such treatment as a State may include the direct

provision of funds reserved under subsection (c) to thegoverning bodies of Indian tribes, and the determination ofpriorities by Indian tribes, where not determined by theAdministrator in cooperation with the Director of the IndianHealth Service. The Administrator, in cooperation with theDirector of the Indian Health Service, is authorized to makegrants under title II of this Act in an amount not to exceed100 percent of the cost of a project. Not later than 18months after the date of the enactment of this section, theAdministrator shall, in consultation with Indian tribes,promulgate final regulations which specify how Indiantribes shall be treated as States for purposes of this Act.The Administrator shall, in promulgating such regulations,consult affected States sharing common water bodies andprovide a mechanism for the resolution of any unreasonableconsequences that may arise as a result of differing waterquality standards that may be set by States and Indiantribes located on common bodies of water. Such mechanismshall provide for explicit consideration of relevant factorsincluding, but not limited to, the effects of differing waterquality permit requirements on upstream and downstream

11

I.1.1

APPENDIX C 141

dischargers, economic impacts, and present and historicaluses and quality of the waters subject to such standards.Such mechanism should provide for the avoidance of suchunreasonable consequences in a manner consistent with theobjective of this Act.

"(f) GRANTS FOR NONPOINT SOURCEPROGRAMS.The Administrator shall make grants to anIndian tribe under section 319 of this Act as though suchtribe was a State. Not more than one-third of one percent ofthe amount appropriated for any fiscal year under section319 may be used to make grants under this subsection. Inaddition to the requirements of section 319, an Indian tribeshall be required to meet the requirements of paragraphs(1), (2), and (3) of subsection (d) of this section in order toreceive such a grant.

Appendix D

Report of theConference Committee,

U.S. House ofRepresentatives

Management of NonpointSources of Pollution

The conference substitute establishes a national policy thatprograms for the control of nonpoint sources of pollution bedeveloped and implemented in an expeditious manner so asto enable the goals of this Act to be met through the controlof bot point and nonpoint sources of pollution.

The provision provides $400 million over 4 years toStates or combinations of adjacent States to implement non-point source management programs. An authorization forgrants to States to carry out ground water quality protec-tion activities as part of a comprehensive nonpoint sourcepollution control program, is also provided.

Each State is required to submit a report which identifiesState waters which without additional action to control non-point sources of pollution cannot reasonably be expected toattain or maintain applicable water quality standards or the

143


goals and requirements of the Act. A particular water bodyor segment should not be excluded from identification underthis subsection on a theoretical showing that it would bepossible to meet water quality standards without nonpointsource controls. "Reasonably expected" is intended to meanthat all waters for which nonpoint controls would be an ap-propriate and effective means to achieving water qualitystandard.: will be identified in the State's report.

The report shall also include identification of andmanagement practices for categories and subcategories ofnonpoint sources and may include, where appropriate, par-ticular nonpoint sources which add significant pollution toeach portion of the identified waters. It would be ap-propriate to identify such particular sources where they con-tribute significant nonpoint pollution to water not meetingwater quality standards.

States or combinations of adjacent States shall alsoprepare and submit to EPA Management Programs for im-plementation, which shall include an identification of bestmanagement practices and measures which the State willundertake. When identifying best management practicesfor categories and subcategories which will be undertaken toreduce nonpoint pollution, it is appropriate for States tofocus on specific categories and subcategories or watershedswhere nonpoint pollution is a significant problem and to setpriorities among categories, subcategories and watersheds.Setting priorities, however, should not be construed to allowStates to exclude watersheds not meeting water qualitystandards, or categories or subcategories contributing sig-nificant nonpoint pollution, from the report and manage-ment program submitted by the State.

The Management Programs shall also identify theprograms (including, as appropriate, nonregulatory orregulatory programs for enforcement, technical assistance,financial assistance, education, training, technology, trans-fer, and demonstration projects) to achieve implementationof best management practices; a schedule containing annualimplementation milestones and providing for utilization of

APPENDIX D 145

best management practices at the earliest possible date; andan identification ofFederal programs and projects which theState will review pursuant to the procedures set forth in Ex-ecutive Order 12372, as in effect on September 17, 1983, todetermine whether such assistance is consistent with thepurposes and objectives of the program under this section.Programs shall be developed and implemented, to the maxi-mum extent practicable, with the involvement of local andother entities with expertise and experience in control ofnonpoint sources of pollution. States shall, to the maximumextent practicable, develop and implement programs on awatershed-by-watershed basis.

The States shall submit their reports and managementprograms to EPA within 18 months of enactment. The Ad-ministrator must approve or disapprove the submissionswithin 180 days or they are deemed approved. The Ad-ministrator may disapprove a program or portion of it upondetermination, among other considerations, that it is notlikely to satisfy the goals and requirements of the Act, orthat the practices and measures proposed in the plan arenot adequate to reduce nonpoint source pollution and to im-prove water quality. The State shall have 3 months torevise its plan and the Administrator shall approve or dis-

approve the revised program within 3 months. If a statefails to submit the report, or if it is not approved, a localpublic agency or organization with expertise in andauthority to control nonpoint sources may, with the ap-proval of the State, develop and implement a program for itsarea.

Where waters in a State with an approved program arenot meeting applicable water quality standards or the goalsand requirements of the Act because of upstream pollution,the State may petition EPA to convene and EPA shall con-vene, or EPA may initiate, an interstate management con-ference to develop an agreement. Nothing in the agreementshall supersede or abrogate water rights established by in-terstate water compacts, Supreme Court decrees or Statewater laws. Nor shall the subsection apply to any pollution


subject to the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act.The requirement that the Administrator convene a con-ference shall not be subject to Section 505 of this Act. Tothe extent that States reach agreement through the con-ference, their management programs will be revised to"reflect" agreements reached at an interstate managementconference. It is intended that the agreements will be incor-porated in revised state programs and will be carried out.Management programs shall be consistent with Federal andState laws.

In making grants under this provision, the Administratorshall give priority to effective mechanisms which will con-trol particularly difficult nonpoint source problems; imple-ment innovative methods or practices; control interstatenonpoint source pollution; or carry out ground water qualityprotection activities.

The Federal grant share shall not exceed 60% of the im-plementation costs, and non-Federal sources shall provideat least 40% of the costs.

States may use Federal funds authorized by the bill forfinancial assistance to individuals only insofar as the assis-tance is related to costs of implementing demonstrationprojects. Federal funds are not to be used as a general sub-sidy or for general cost sharing to support implementationof best management practices.

No grant may be made unless the Administrator deter-mines that the State has made satisfactory progress in thepreceding year in meeting its schedule.

Each State shall submit annual progress reports to theAdministrator. The Administrator shall transmit to the Of-fice of Management and Budget and appropriate Federaldepartments and agencies a list of the programs andprojects identified by each State under the consistencyprovision, and each Federal department or agency shallmodify its regulations and accommodate the concerns of theState according to the requirements and definitions of Ex-ecutive Order 12372 as in effect on September 17,1983.

APPENDIX D 147

The Administrator shall report annually to Congress onthe activities, programs and progress made in the precedingyear, and shall transmit a final report not later thanJanuary 1, 1990 on the activities carried out under this sec-tion.

The conference substitute contains both the Section205(j)(5) and Section 201(gX1) set-aside provisions.

1 r"' <-.1. J j

Appendix E

State Water ResourcesResearch Institutes

AlabamaProfessor James C. Warman, DirectorWater Resources Research Institute202 Hargis HallAuburn UniversityAuburn, Alabama 36349(205) 826-5075

AlaskaDr. Edward J. Brown, DirectorWater Research CenterUniversity of Alaska-FairbanksFairbanks, Alaska 99775-1760(907) 474-7775

ArizonaDr. William B. Lord, DirectorWater Resources Research CenterGeology Building, Room 318The University of ArizonaTucson, Arizona 85721(602) 621-1172

149

Hi


ArkansasDr. Leslie E. Mack, DirectorArkansas Water Resouces Research Center223 Ozark HallUniversity of ArkansasFayetteville, Arkansas 72701(501) 575-4403

CaliforniaDr. Henry J. Vaux, Jr., DirectorWater Resources Center2102 Wickson HallUniversity of CaliforniaDavis, California 95616(916) 752-1544 (T/Thurs.)(714) 787-4657 (M/W/F)

ColoradoDr. Norman A. Evans, DirectorColorado Water Resources Research Institute326 Aylesworth HallColorado State UniversityFort Collins, Colorado 80523(303) 491-6308

ConnecticutDr. Donald F. Squires, DirectorInstitute of Water ResourcesThe University of ConnecticutRoom 228, Hall Building, U-18362 Fairfield RoadStorrs, Connecticut 06268(203) 486-4523

DelawareDr. Robert D. Varrin, DirectorWater Resources Center101 Hullihen HallUniversity of DelawareNewark, Delaware 19716(302) 451-2191

District of ColumbiaMr. James Hannahan, Acting DirectorWater Resources Research Center4200 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.University of the District of ColumbiaWashington, D.C. 20008(202) 282-7333

FloridaDr. James P. Heaney, DirectorWater Resources Research Center424 Black HallUniversity of FloridaGainesville, Florida 32611(904) 392-0840

GeorgiaDr. Bernd Kahn, DirectorEnvironmental Resources Center205 Old Civil Engineering BuildingGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlanta, Georgia 30332(404) 894-3776

APPENDIX E 151


GuamDr. Leroy Heitz, DirectorWater and Energy Research Institute of the Western PacificUniversity of GuamUOG StationMangilao, Guam 96913(Country Code: 671) 734-3132

HawaiiDr. L. Stephen Lau, DirectorWater Resources Research CenterUniversity of HawaiiHolmes Hall 2832540 Dole StreetHonolulu, Hawaii 96822(808) 948-7847

IdahoDr. George L. Bloomsburg, DirectorWater Resources Research InstituteMorrill Hall 106University of IdahoMoscow, Idaho 83843(208) 885-6429

IllinoisDr. Glenn E. Stout, DirectorWater Resources CenterUniversity of Illinois208 N. Romine StreetUrbana, Illinois 61801(217) 333-0536

11 r ; 1

kj 0

APPENDIX E 153

IndianaProf. John H. Cushman, DirectoWater Resources Research CenterPurdue UniversityLilly HallWest Lafayette, Indiana 47907(317) 494-8041 or 494-2172

IowaDr. T. Al Austin, DirectorIowa State Water Resources Research Institute355 Town Engineering BuildingIowa State UniversityAmes, Iowa 50011(515) 294-8921

KansasDr. Floyd W. Smith, DirectorKansas Water Resources Research InstituteKansas State UniversityWaters Hall 14Manhattan, Kansas 66506(913) 532-5729

KentuckyDr. David T. Kao, DirectorKentucky Water Resources Research InstituteUniversity of Kentucky219 Anderson HallLexington, Kentucky 40506-0046(606) 257-1299(606) 257-4856 (Dr. Kao direct)

1 I.J


LouisianaDr. Marty E. TittlebaumDirector and Associate ProfessorLouisiana Water Resources Research InstituteLouisiana State University2401-A CEBA BuildingBaton Rouge, Louisiana 70803(504) 388-8508 or 388-8509

MaineDr. Gregory K. White, DirectorLand and Water Resources CenterUniversity of Maine11 Coburn HallOrono, Maine 04469(207) 581-1492 or 581-1490

MarylandDr. Robert E. Menzer, DirectorWater Resources Research CenterUniversity of Maryland0313 Symons HallCollege Park, Maryland 20742(301) 454-6406

MassachusettsDr. Paul J. Godfrey, DirectorWater Resources Research CenterUniversity of MassachusettsBlaisdell HouseAmherst, Massachusetts 01003(413) 545-2842

1 rJ

fi

MichiganDr. Jon Bartholic, Acting DirectorInstitute of Water ResearchMichigan State UniversityEast Lansing, Michigan 48824(517) 353-3742

MinnesotaDr. Patrick Brezonik, DirectorWater Resources Research CenterUniversity of Minnesota866 Biological Sciences Center1445 Gortner AvenueSt. Paul, Minnesota 55108(612) 624-9282

MississippiDr. Marvin T. Bond, Executive DirectorWater Resources Research InstituteMississippi State UniversityP.O. Drawer ADMississippi State, Mississippi 39762(601) 325-3620

MissouriDr. Thomas E. Clevenger, DirectorWater Resources Research CenterUniversity of MissouriSinclair Road, Route 3Columbia, Missouri 65203(314) 882-2151

APPENDIX E 155


MontanaDr. Howard S. Peavy, Acting DirectorMontana Water Resources Research CenterMontana State UniversitySuite 309, Montana HallBozeman, Montana 59717(406) 994-6690

NebraskaDr. William L. Powers, DirectorNebraska Water Resources CenterUniversity of Nebraska113 Nebraska HallLincoln, Nebraska 68588-0517(402) 472-3305

NevadaDr. Paul R. Fenske, Executive DirectorWater Resources CenterDesert Research InstituteUniversity of Nevada SystemP.O. Box 60220Reno, Nevada 89506(702) 673-7361

New HampshireDr. Thomas Ballestero, DirectorWater Resources Research Center224 Science/Engineering Research BuildingUniversity of New HampshireDurham, New Hampshire 03824(603) 862-2144

APPENDIX E 157

New JerseyDr. Alan W. McIntosh, DirectorDivision of Water ResourcesCenter for Coastal and Environmental StudiesRutgers, The State University of New JerseyDoolittle Hall, Busch CampusNew Brunswick, New Jersey 08903(201) 932-3596 or 932-3738

New MexicoDr. Bobby J. Creel, Acting DirectorWater Resources Research InstituteNew Mexico State UniversityP.O. Box 3167Las Cruces, New Mexico 88003(505) 646-4337

New YorkProfessor Keith S. Porter, DirectorWater Resources Institute468 Hollister HallCornell UniversityIthaca, New York 14853(607) 255 -5939

North CarolinaDr. David H. Moreau, DirectorWater Resources Research Institute of the @Appendix A =University of North CarolinaNorth Carolina state University225 Page Hall, Box 7912Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-7912(919) 737-2815 or 737-2816

O


North DakotaDr. R. Craig Schnell, DirectorWater Resources Research Institute202 Old MainNorth Dakota State UniversityFargo, North Dakota 58105(701) 237-7034

OhioDr. Robert C. Stiefel, DirectorWater Resources CenterThe Ohio State University1791 Neil AvenueColumbus, Ohio 43210(614) 292-2334

OklahomaDr. Norman N. Durham, DirectorOklahoma Water Research InstituteOklahoma State University203 Whitehurst HallStillwater, Oklahoma 74078(405) 624-6995(405) 624-6368 (Dr. Durham direct)

OregonDr. Peter C. Klingeman, DirectorWater Resources Research Institute115 Covell HallOregon State UniversityCorvallis, Oregon 97331(503) 754-4022

APPENDIX E 159

PennsylvaniaDr. Archie J. McDonnell, DirectorEnvironmental Resources Research InstituteThe Pennsylvania State University103 Land and Water Research BuildingUniversity Park, Pennsylvania 16802(814) 863-0291

Puerto RicoProfessor Luis A. del Valle, DirectorWater Resources Research InstituteRUM-UPRP.O. Box 5000Mayaguez, Puerto Rico 00709-5000(809) 834-4040, Ext. 3540

Rhode IslandDr. Calvin P. C. Poon, DirectorWater Resources CenterRoom 310 Bliss HallUniversity of Rhode IslandKingston, Rhode Island 02881(401) 792-2297

South CarolinaDr. Paul B. Zielinski, DirectorWater Resources Research Institute310 Lowry HallClemson UniversityClemson, South Carolina 29634-2900(803) 656-3273


South DakotaDr. Alan Bender, Acting DirectorWater Resources InstituteSouth Dakota State UniversityP.O. Box 2120Brookings, South Dakota 57007(605) 688-4910

TennesseeDr. E. William Colglazier, Acting DirectorWater Resources Research CenterThe University of Tennessee428 South Stadium HallKnoxville, Teanessee 37996-0750(615) 974-2151

TexasDr. Wayne R. Jordan, DirectorTexas Water Resources InstituteThe Texas A&M UniversityCollege Station, Texas 77843(409)845-1851

UtahDr. L. Douglas James, DirectorCenter for Water Resources ResearchUtah State UniversityLogan, Utah 84322-8200(801) 750-3168

VermontDr. Alan W. McIntosh, DirectorWater Resources Research CenterGeorge D. Aiken Center, Room 320The University of VermontBurlington, Vermont(802) 656-4057

APPENDIX E 161

VirginiaDr. William R. Walker, DirectorVirginia Water Resources Research CenterVirginia Polytechnic Institute & State University617 North Main StreetBlacksburg, Virginia 24060(703) 961-5624

Virgin IslandsDr. Darshan S. Padda, Acting DirectorVirgin Islands Water Resources Research CenterCaribbean Research InstituteUniversity of the Virgin IslandsSt. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00802(809) 776-9200

WashingtonDr. William H. Funk, DirectorState of Washington Water Research CenterWashington State UniversityAlbrook Lab 202BPullman, Washington 99164-3002(509) 3365531

West VirginiaProfessor Charles R. Jenkins, DirectorWater Research InstituteWest Virginia University258 Stewart StreetMorgantown, West Virginia 26506(304) 293-2757

162 CONTROLLING NeNPOINT-SOURCE WATER POLLUTION

WisconsinDr. Gordon Chesters, DirectorWater Resources CenterThe University of Wisconsin1975 Willow Drive, 2nd FloorMadison, Wisconsin 57[A3706(608) 262-3577

WyomingDr. Harold L. Bergman, Acting DirectorWyoming Water Research CenterThe University of WyomingP.O. Box 3067, University StationLaramie, Wyoming 82071(307) 766-2143

Appendix F

Major Nonpoint-SourcePollution Categories

and Subcategories

NONPOINT SOURCES

AgricultureNonirrigated crop productionIrrigated crop productionSpecialty crop production (e.g., truck farming and

orchards)PasturelandRangelandFeedlots - all typesAquacultureAnimal holding/management areas

SilvicultureHarvesting, reforestation, residue managementForest managementRoad construction/maintenance

r6a,-& u J


ConstructionHighway/road/bridgeLand development

Urban RunoffStorm sewers (source control)Combined sewers (source control)Surface runoff

Resource Extraction/Exploration /DevelopmentSurface miningSubsurface miningPlacer miningDredge miningPetroleum activitiesMill tailingsMine tailings

Land Disposal (Runoff/Leachate fromPermitted Areas)

SludgeWastewaterLandfillsIndustrial land treatmentOn-site wastewater systems (septic tanks, etc.)Hazardous waste

Hydrologic/Habitat ModificationChannelizationDredgingDam constructionFlow regulation/modificationBridge constructionRemoval of riparian vegetationStreambank modification/destabilization

4

APPENDIX. F 165

OtherAtmospheric depositionWaste storage/storage tank leaksHighway maintenance and runoffSpillsIn-place contaminantsNatural

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Guidelines for thePreparation of the 1988 State Water Quality Assessment (305(b)Report, April 1, 1987, p.19.

Appendix G

Agricultural Chemicalsfor which EPA

Has RecommendedWater-Quality Criteria

Aldrin/DieldrinAmmoniaChlordaneChlorophenoxy Herbicides (2,4,5-TP and 2,4-D)DDT & Metabolites (DDE and TDE)Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD)EndosulfanEndrinHeptachlorMalathionMethoxychlorMirexNitratesParathionPhosphorusToxaphene

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Quality Criteria forWater, EPA report 440/5-86-001, Office of Water Regulations andStandards, Washington, DC, May 1, 1986.

167

References

INTRODUCTION

1. Edwin H. Clark II, Jennifer A. Haverkamp, and William Chapman,Eroding Soils: The Off-Farm Impacts, (Washington, D.C.: The Conserva-tion Foundation, 1985), p. 8.

2. Ibid.3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regula-

tions and Standards, National Water Quality Inventory: 1984 Report toCongress, Report No. EPA 440/4/85/029 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency, August, 1985).

4. Section 316 of the Water Quality Act of 1987 (Management of Non-point-Sources of Pollution) amends Section 319 of the Clean Water Act.This amended section, along with other provisions of the Water QualityAct relevant to nonpoint-source pollution, is reproduced in Appendix C.More information can be found in the relevant section of the conferencereport, which is reproduced in Appendix D. EPA has provided guidanceon this legislation. Contact your regional EPA nonpoint-source coor-dinator or EPA headquarters in Washington, D.C. (see Appendix A).

TIPS

1. National Wildlife Federation, The 1987 Conservation Directory,(Washington, D.C.: National Wildlife Federation, 1987). 1412 SixteenthStreet, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

CHAPTER 2

1. Kenneth Webb and Harry P. Hatry, Obtaining Citizen Feedback(Washington, D.C.: National Wildlife Federation, 1987).

2. National Wildlife Federation, The 1987 Conservation Directory(Washington, D.C.: National Wildlife Federation, 1987).

3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Quality Criteria for Water1986 (EPA Report 440/5-86-001, May, 1986) (Washington, D.C.: Office ofWater Regulations and Standards).

169


CHAPTER 5

1.. Executive Order No. 12372 of 'July 14, 1982, "IntergovernmentalReview of Federal Programs," 47 F.R. 30959.

The Conservation Foundationanci)1250 Twenty-Fourth ,Street, N.W. ALX)

Washington, D.C. 20037 UUNational Audubon Society

950 Third Avenue

New York, N.Y. 10022

ISBN 0-89164-105-X

as

88 174p. Books (010) · reader step-by-step through the process that states must follow to comply...

Documents

Transcript of 88 174p. Books (010) · reader step-by-step through the process that states must follow to comply...