congress on control of nonpoint source water pollution

Winter 2002-2003 renewable Resources Journal 1

RENEWABLE RESOURCES JOURNALSPECIAL REPORT

VOLUME 20 NUMBER 4WINTER 2002-2003

®

RENEWABLE NATURAL RESOURCES FOUNDATION

WWW.RNRF.ORG

Congress onControl of Nonpoint Source

Water Pollution:Options and Opportunities

2 renewable Resources Journal Winter 2002-2003

RENEWABLE NATURAL RESOURCES FOUNDATION

MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS

American Fisheries Society

American Geophysical Union

American Meteorological Society

American Society of Agronomy

American Society of Civil Engineers

American Society of Landscape Architects

American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing

American Water Resources Association

Association of American Geographers

Humane Society of the United States, The

Society for Range Management

Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry

Society of Wood Science and Technology

Soil and Water Conservation Society

Universities Council on Water Resources

The Wildlife Society


Sponsored By:

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

USDA FOREST SERVICE

Hosted By:

Department of Natural Resource Sciences and Landscape Architecture,University of Maryland, College Park

Additional Support Provided By:

National Water Quality Assessment and National Mapping Programs,U.S. Geological Survey

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

U.S. Bureau of Land Management

CONGRESS PROGRAM COMMITTEEChair: John S. Dickey, Jr., American Geophysical Union; Marcia Argust, American Society for LandscapeArchitecture; Karl Blankenship, Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay; Deen E. Boe, Society for Range Management;Steve Borchard, Bureau of Land Management; Mark Bundy, Maryland Department of Natural Resources; VernonB. Cardwell, American Society of Agronomy; Michael L. Clar, American Society of Civil Engineers; RoanConrad, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Robert D. Day, Renewable Natural ResourcesFoundation; Richard L. Duesterhaus, Soil and Water Conservation Society; Richard A. Engberg, AmericanWater Resources Association; Thomas M. Franklin, The Wildlife Society; Sarah Gerould, Society of EnvironmentalToxicology and Chemistry; John W. Grandy, Humane Society of the United States; Albert A. Grant, RNRFPublic Interest Member; Warren Harper, USDA Forest Service; Galen Hart, American Society for Photogrammetryand Remote Sensing; William H. Hooke, American Meteorological Society; Burrell E. Montz, Association ofAmerican Geographers; David W. Moody, American Water Resources Association; Ghassan N. Rassam, AmericanFisheries Society; Priscilla Reining, RNRF Public Interest Member; Howard N. Rosen, Society of Wood Scienceand Technology; David L. Trauger, Virginia Tech; Richard A. Weismiller, University of Maryland; Dov Weitman,U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Staff Liaison: Ryan M. Colker, Renewable Natural Resources Foundation.


Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................. 5

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 6

Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 8

Summary of Presentations .................................................................................................. 9TMDLs: Integrating Point Sources and Nonpoint SourcesEight Tools For Watershed Planning

Controlling Nonpoint Source Pollution ............................................................................ 17BMPs and the American Agricultural SystemThe Role of PBTs in NPSAir Pollution’s Impact on Nonpoint Source Pollution

Appendix A: History & Procedures .................................................................................. 25

Appendix B: List of Delegates ......................................................................................... 27

Appendix C: Existing Internet Resources ........................................................................ 30

About RNRF ..................................................................................................................... 31

RENEWABLE RESOURCES JOURNALThe Renewable Resources Journal (ISSN 0738-6532)

is published quarterly by the Renewable Natural Re-sources Foundation, 5430 Grosvenor Lane, Bethesda,MD 20814 USA. Telephone: (301) 493-9101. Fax: (301)493-6148. Email: [email protected]. Web site: http://www.rnrf.org © RNRF 2002.

Subscription rates are $21.00 for individuals ($27.00for individuals outside the USA) and $39.00 per yearfor institutions ($45.00 for institutions outside the USA).Missing issues covered by paid subscription will be re-placed without charge provided claim is made withinsix months after date of issue. Otherwise, payment at asingle issue rate will be required. RNRF assumes noresponsibility for statements and opinions expressed bycontributors. Permission is granted to quote from thejournal with the customary acknowledgement of source.Requests to photocopy articles for distribution to stu-dents and other academic users should be directed to:

Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive,Danvers, MA 01923. (978) 750-8400. Fax: (978) 750-4744. Web site: http://www.copyrights.com.

Editorial Staff: Robert D. Day, editor; Ryan M.Colker, assistant editor; Karen LeBeau and CamilleMcCarthy, intern editorial assistants; Chandru Krishna,circulation manager.

Editorial Board: Peter E. Black, College of Environ-mental Science and Forestry, State University of NewYork, Syracuse; Gregory N. Brown, College of NaturalResources, Virginia Tech; John S. Dickey, Jr., Outreachand Research Support, American Geophysical Union;Robert T. Lackey, National Health and EnvironmentalEffects Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Pro-tection Agency; Burrell E. Montz, Geography and En-vironmental Studies, Binghamton University; andHoward N. Rosen, Resource Valuation and Use Re-search, USDA Forest Service.


Acknowledgments

On behalf of the RNRF Board of Directors and staff, ac-knowledgment and appreciation are extended to the manypeople and organizations contributing to the success ofRNRF’s fifth national congress. Sponsors included the:National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, and USDA Forest Ser-vice. Additional support was provided by the: NationalWater Quality Assessment & National Mapping Programsof the U.S. Geological Survey; USDA Natural ResourcesConservation Service; and U.S. Bureau of Land Manage-ment.

The Department of Natural Resource Sciences and Land-scape Architecture at the University of Maryland served ashost and provided university and extension service person-nel to serve as facilitators and working group reporters. Con-duct of the meeting and the preparation of this report wouldnot have been possible without their volunteered assistance.These volunteers are identified in the appendix.

Serving in the important capacity of working group chairswere: Peter Black (State University of New York, Syracuse),Greg Brown (Virginia Tech), Mark Bundy (Maryland De-partment of Natural Resources), Chris Lant (Southern Illi-nois University), Larry Nielsen (North Carolina State Uni-versity), and Patrick Reid (University of Arizona). Theypresided over the working groups, and prepared and pre-sented working group summary reports at the conclusion ofthe congress. Their work has been incorporated into this re-port.

Six distinguished plenary-session speakers provided es-sential background information and insightful analysis:Donald Boesch (University of Maryland), Jim McElfish(Environmental Law Institute), Tim Miller (U.S. Geologi-cal Survey), Tom Schueler (Center for Watershed Protec-

RNRF Board of Directors

Chairman: David W. Moody (American Water ResourcesAssociation); Vice-chairman: Albert A. Grant (Public Inter-est Member of the Board); Executive Director: Robert D. Day;Directors: Deen E. Boe (Society for Range Management);Vernon B. Cardwell (American Society of Agronomy); JamesE. Davis (American Society of Civil Engineers); Richard L.Duesterhaus (Soil and Water Conservation Society); SarahGerould (Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemis-try); Harry E. Hodgdon (The Wildlife Society); Paul G. Irwin

(The Humane Society of the U.S.); Ronald D. McPherson(American Meteorological Society); Burrell E. Montz (Asso-ciation of American Geographers); Lawrence R. Pettinger(American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing);Ghassan N. “Gus” Rassam (American Fisheries Society);Priscilla Reining (Public Interest Member of the Board);Howard N. Rosen (Society of Wood Science and Technology);A.F. Spilhaus Jr. (American Geophysical Union); and BarryW. Starke (American Society of Landscape Architects).

tion), Dov Weitman (U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency), and Lauren Wenzel (Maryland Department ofNatural Resources). And everyone appreciated the specialkeynote presentations by NOAA’s Margaret Davidson andMaryland Governor Parris Glendening.

Tireless leadership in planning and conducting the con-gress was provided by program committee chair John S.Dickey Jr. He also served as moderator and master of cer-emonies. He could not have served better.

RNRF Chairman David W. Moody provided leadershipin conceptualizing the congress, gave technical assistance,and facilitated a plenary session.

Also critical to the success of the congress were the 24volunteers who served on the program committee. Commit-tee members are listed on page 3.

RNRF interns provided critical research and logisticalsupport. They were: Madeleine Bayard (Georgetown Univ.),Meghann Garrabrant (American Univ.), Todd Kuiken(George Washington Univ.), Kara LeBeau (Johns HopkinsUniv.), Nathan Matthews (Michigan State Univ.), andCamille McCarthy (George Washington Univ.).

Special appreciation and thanks go to our program direc-tor Ryan Colker. Our freshly minted juris doctor tackledhis first national conference with enthusiasm and determi-nation. He assembled this report from plenary session pre-sentations, working group reports, notes, flip chart sheets,and delegate comments.

Finally, sincere thanks are extended to the dedicated con-gress delegates who shared their expertise, experience, ideas,vision and passion to conserve and restore an essential re-newable natural resource. They provided the essential inter-disciplinary content for this report. A complete list of dele-gates appears in the appendix.

Robert D. Day


Water is essential to the functioningof all life forms and ecosystems, andnecessary for many agricultural, indus-trial and human uses. It provides uswith drinking water, recreational activi-ties, and irrigation, and provides plantsand wildlife with habitat, nutrients, anda food source. However, in the U.Sabout 40 percent of streams, 45 per-cent of lakes and 50 percent of estuar-ies are not clean enough to support usessuch as fishing and swimming (EPA,2002). A dead zone the size of NewJersey has stretched from the mouth ofthe Mississippi River into the Gulf ofMexico, mercury contaminated rainfalls onto streams, rivers and lakes fromVirginia to Maine, and the ChesapeakeBay’s sea grasses are disappearing.

In recent years, progress has beenmade in the control of end-of-the-pipedischarges—the point sources. How-ever, nonpoint sources have proven tobe much harder to control and nowcontribute to the majority of waterquality problems (USGS, 1999).Nonpoint source pollution is so diffi-cult to control because of the diversityof sources and the complexities inher-ent in interactions between land useand hydrology. No single sector of so-ciety, land use or medium is totallyresponsible.

Nonpoint source pollution is thedeposition and movement of contami-nants from diffuse sources. Such con-taminants include fertilizers and pes-ticides from agricultural and residen-tial lands; nutrients from livestock andpet wastes, and septic systems; persis-tent bioaccumulative toxins (PBTs, seepage 22) and other toxins from imper-vious surfaces such as parking lots;erosion and siltation of streams fromland disturbances associated with de-

velopment, silviculture, and agricul-ture; and atmospheric deposition ofnitrogen and other contaminants fromautomobiles and trucks, power plants,and other industrial sources onto landor directly into water.

A multidisciplinary approach is nec-essary to address the causes, effects,and solutions. The Renewable NaturalResources Foundation (RNRF) con-vened a congress of delegates from di-verse backgrounds to examine this dif-ficult problem. The Congress on “Con-trol of Nonpoint Source WaterPollution: Options and Opportunities,”was held September 18–21, 2002, inBaltimore, Maryland. A case study andworking group based approach wasused to frame the issues and structurediscussion among the delegates. (SeeAppendix A for a summary of the con-gress program and information on theprocess and procedures.)

This report is based upon commentsand discussion that took place duringthe plenary and working group ses-sions. Findings and recommendationsidentified in this report are those of thecongress delegates and do not neces-sarily represent policies of RNRF, itsmember organizations, or the sponsor-ing agencies.

Controlling NonpointSource Pollution

Current approaches to nonpointsource pollution control, including BestManagement Practices (BMPs), havemade important contributions to im-proving water quality. However, as thesole approach they are insufficient.Efforts must be made to implementprograms that place a greater focus onthe characteristics of a particular re-

gion and take into account all sourcesof water quality impairment, such asTotal Maximum Daily Loads(TMDLs). Utilizing BMPs in conjunc-tion with TMDLs can lead to signifi-cant improvement in water quality.

Local, state and national govern-ments have significant roles in control-ling nonpoint source pollution.Government’s responsibilities includeensuring funding for essential pro-grams like education and research;providing necessary tools such as mod-els and technical assistance; and devel-oping financial incentive programs.Equally important is a robust monitor-ing program. Data are essential togauge progress and to understand theeffects of control strategies. Unfortu-nately, monitoring has been chronicallyunder-funded. This must change.

Appropriately assigning these im-portant responsibilities among the vari-ous levels of government is essential.This is particularly so given the inter-jurisdictional flow of water. Recogniz-ing local variations in land and watercharacteristics—and communityneeds—the control or mitigation ofnonpoint source pollution ultimatelywill be undertaken by local authorities.Regional management structures thathave the ability to address inter-juris-dictional pollution issues, particularlyat the watershed level, will need to bedeveloped.

Developing and nurturing privateand public partnerships is essential toaccomplishing local and regionalgoals. Partnerships among govern-ments also are necessary to improvecooperation and effectiveness. Amentoring or exchange program be-tween and among state and federalagencies could help these partnerships

Executive Summary


develop as employees learn the chal-lenges, goals and constraints of otheragencies. Partnerships with nongovern-mental organizations also can improveeffectiveness of programs.

These partnerships ultimately shouldbe responsible for developing andimplementing control strategies. TheCongress delegates recognized severalkey components of any control strat-egy. Education is an important tool toinform and motivate. Financial incen-tives can be used to encourage peopleto “do the right thing.” Legislation,particularly in the areas of zoning andplanning, needs to be properly formu-lated to accomplish water qualitygoals. Existing laws also must belinked and clarified to recognize theinterconnectedness of resources, and tostrengthen current control programs.

While nonpoint source pollution hasbecome a significant problem, mostpeople are unaware of their contribu-tion to it. Therefore, educating the pub-lic about how changed habits can con-tribute to cleaner water is necessary.Regional workshops involving localstakeholders, including government,natural resource professionals, citizengroups, and schoolteachers, can createissue awareness and prompt participa-tion among essential interests and re-gional leaders.

An especially important audience foreducational efforts is our legislators.They are a key component of any pol-lution control strategy. Legislators needto understand the gravity of the prob-lem and strategies for controlling pol-lution. Pilot projects and success sto-ries can provide information aboutwhat measures work. The reasons forthese successes also must be under-stood.

Natural resources professionals andtheir societies also have a key role innonpoint source pollution control.Most natural resources decisions im-pact water quality. Professionals shouldbe trained to anticipate and resolvepotential impacts from nonpoint sourcewater pollution. Professional societiescan improve awareness and practicethrough continuing education, certifi-cation, and publications.

Better utilization of the media andschools can contribute to a more in-formed public. A nonpoint source mar-keting campaign could include an eas-ily recognized logo, mascot and slo-gan. Incorporating environmentaleducation elements into school curricu-lums prepare children to educate theirparents.

Creating a sense of place in all sec-tors of society could help raise aware-ness and provide incentives to exam-ine actions. The involvement of com-

munity groups such as Kiwanis andRotary can bring community mindedpeople into the mix. Targeting the con-sumers of pesticides, herbicides, andfertilizers should be accomplishedthrough vendor licensing and instruc-tional requirements.

Conclusion

There are many actions that we cantake to control nonpoint source waterpollution.

• Governments need to work to-gether, recognizing the variabilityin communities and resources.

• Monitoring programs need to befunded to determine where con-trols are necessary and to assurethat they are working.

• Future legislation needs to beevaluated for its impact on waterquality, while existing laws needto be clarified and utilized to takeadvantage of possible control op-portunities.

• Natural resources professionalshave a responsibility to anticipateand resolve potential impacts fromnonpoint source water pollution.

• An extensive education effort in-cluding all sectors of society—from legislators to elementaryschool students—is needed.


The author of this report, Ryan M.Colker, is the Director of Programs atthe Renewable Natural ResourcesFoundation. Colker earned a Bachelorof Arts with honors in environmentalpolicy from the University of Florida,and a Juris Doctor from The GeorgeWashington University Law School.

Because of the multiple sources ofnonpoint source pollution, the varyingimpacts, and the diversity of controlmethods required, no single disciplinecan adequately address the nonpointsource problem. Cooperation amongthe biological, physical and social sci-ences is required to meet the Nation’swater quality goals. In recognition ofthe need for a multidisciplinary ap-proach, over 100 delegates from a va-riety of disciplines attended the RNRFCongress on “Control of NonpointSource Water Pollution: Options andOpportunities.” (See Appendix B for alist of delegates.)

The following report is the proceed-ings of the congress. It contains thefindings and recommendations of thecongress delegates, and importantbackground information.

Summary of Presentations

The congress utilized a workinggroup-based approach to tackle thismajor problem in water resource pro-tection. Respected and knowledgeablespeakers presented information neces-sary for the thorough discussion ofnonpoint source pollution. The contentof these presentations appears in thesection “Summary of Presentations”which begins on page 9. Followingeach presentation, delegates questionedthe speaker and discussed the issues.

The congress also examined theChesapeake Bay as a case study. TheBay was selected because of the widevariety of land-uses within the water-shed, its history of monitoring andmodeling, and the long-standing effortsof several states to save its environmen-tal integrity. Information from the casestudy also is provided in this section.

Findings and Recommendations

To utilize the delegates’ previousknowledge and that gained from theplenary sessions and case study, work-ing groups were formed to discuss themajor outstanding issues in nonpoint

Introduction

Ryan M. Colker

source pollution control. (For an in-depth explanation, see “WorkingGroups” in Appendix A). Findings andrecommendations developed in theseworking groups and the plenary sessiondiscussions are presented in this sec-tion. The recommendations includeboth short- and long-term actions thatneed to be taken.

Appendices

RNRF congresses provide a uniqueformat for exploration of critical issuesin natural resources. The elements andhistory of this special forum are in-cluded in Appendix A.

The success of this and previous con-gresses can be attributable to the highcaliber of invited delegates. Delegatesto the fifth national congress are listedin Appendix B.

The Internet has become a majorsource of information. Appendix C fea-tures Internet resources on nonpointsource pollution identified by del-egates. The list is by no means exhaus-tive—many high-quality resources arenot listed.


Summary of Presentations

Defining Nonpoint SourcePollution, Its Extent and Effects

Timothy L. Miller, chief of the Na-tional Water Quality Assessment(NAWQA) program for the U.S. Geo-logical Survey (USGS), began the con-gress with a description of nonpointsource pollution and how NAWQAdata are used to assess the current im-pact of nonpoint source pollution onour water resources.

Miller recognized the importance ofthe problem and the complications oftrying to control it. Over 70 percent ofimpaired rivers’ water quality problemsare associated with diffuse nonpointsources of pollution from agriculturalland, urban development, forest har-vesting, and the atmosphere. The CleanWater Act was reauthorized in 1987 toinclude provisions to address nonpointsource pollution. However, difficultiesin controlling nonpoint source pollu-tion remain—its origins are diffuse andwidespread and its magnitude varieshour-to-hour and season-to-season.

At about the same time, Congressbegan appropriating funds to USGS tosupport an assessment of the nation’sstreams and groundwater resources.Over the past decade, more than 50NAWQA studies have documented sig-nificant nonpoint source contaminantpatterns in some of the nation’s moreimportant river basins and aquifers.NAWQA studies are not limited tononpoint source pollution; their goalis to describe the general health ofwater resources, as well as current andemerging water issues.

In the last decade, NAWQA studiesdescribed water quality conditions innearly 120 agricultural watersheds and35 urban watersheds. The findings gen-erally showed that nonpoint chemicalcontamination is an issue for both typesof watersheds.

Nitrogen and phosphorus in thesewatersheds commonly exceeded levelsthat lead to excessive algae growth.Nearly 80 percent of sampled agricul-tural streams and over 70 percent ofurban streams exceeded the Environ-mental Protection Agency (EPA) phos-phorus goal for preventing nuisanceaquatic plant growth. Such growth canlead to low dissolved oxygen, causingharm to fish and other aquatic life. TheEPA, along with states and tribes, aredeveloping criteria for phosphorus andnitrogen runoff. Because such runoffdepends on factors such as hydrologyand climate, the criteria are being de-veloped on a regional basis.

Nitrate levels in shallow groundwater underlying farmland often areabove background levels. This raisesconcern in rural areas, particularlywhere the shallow ground water is usedfor domestic supply. The wells may notbe regulated and owners often do notknow if the water is contaminated. Ni-trate levels are highest where soils andkarst structure enables rapid infiltrationand downward movement of water andcontaminants. Locations such as theCentral Valley of California, parts ofthe Pacific Northwest, the Great Plains,and the Mid-Atlantic regions are mostvulnerable.

Pesticides also are widespread and

prevalent in streams and groundwater.Almost all stream samples (97 percent)and half the groundwater samples con-tained at least one pesticide. Almostevery fish sample also contained pes-ticides, but that does not necessarilytranslate to human health risks.

Finding low levels of pesticides al-lows scientists to detect and evaluateemerging issues and track contaminantlevels over time. The pesticides com-monly occurred in complex mixtureswith over 70 percent of all streamsamples containing five or more pesti-cides, and nearly a quarter containingmore than ten. Chemical breakdownproducts, which may have similar orgreater toxicities than their parent com-pounds, are often as widespread as theirparents, and at higher concentrations.

While the concentrations of pesti-cides are generally low and withindrinking water standards, the possiblerisks to humans, aquatic life, and wild-life remain unclear. Drinking waterstandards or guidelines do not includemany contaminants and their break-down products. Current standards alsodo not address the presence of multiplecompounds or the impacts of briefpulses of higher concentrations due toseasonal variations.

These seasonal variations were de-tected in every basin, but the charac-teristics varied. In general, brief sea-sonal pulses of much higher concen-trations followed lengthy periods oflow concentration. In many streamsthat drain agricultural areas, the high-est levels of nutrients and pesticidesoccurred during spring and summer


when recently applied chemicals werewashed away by spring rains, snow-melt, and irrigation. Other agriculturalareas may have had different patternsdue to crop type and climate. In urbanareas, the seasonal spikes were typi-cally less pronounced. Pesticides usedmostly in urban areas, such as pro-meton and diazinon, usually were ap-plied in late summer and higher con-centrations were detected at this timein many urban streams.

Patterns of contamination provideinsight for tracking the origins ofnonpoint source pollution. The typesand concentrations of compoundsfound in certain bodies of water areclosely linked to their use and land usein the surrounding area. Thus, water inurban settings typically has a charac-teristic chemical makeup or signaturethat differs from that found in agricul-tural or other settings.

For example, some of the highestconcentrations of nitrogen and herbi-cides, particularly four of the top fiveherbicides used in agriculture, weredetected in streams in agricultural ar-eas. In urban areas, four compoundsaccounted for most of the insecticidesdetected. These compounds occur athigher frequencies and higher concen-trations in urban streams than in agri-cultural ones. Insecticide concentra-tions were usually within EPA drink-ing water standards, but insecticideconcentrations in every urban streamsample exceeded at least one guidelineestablished to protect aquatic life.

In addition to water samples,NAWQA scientists have looked at tox-ins in urban stream and lake sediments.Concentrations of trace elements suchas cadmium, lead, zinc, and mercurywere elevated in populated urban set-tings, most likely due to emissionsfrom industrial and municipal activi-ties, and the widespread use of motorvehicles. These toxic compounds in-evitably appear in fish. Because ofbioaccumulation, concentrations ofsome toxic contaminants in fish tissue

often are higher than concentrations inthe sediment. Nationwide, one or moreorganochlorine compounds were de-tected in 97 percent of urban whole fishsamples and PCBs were detected inmore than 80 percent of whole fishsamples. (See PBTs and NPS, page 22.)

Nonpoint source pollution also de-grades biological communities. Pollu-tion tolerant algae and aquatic inverte-brates and omnivorous fish communi-ties often dominate degraded areas.Three factors have been found to con-tribute to this degradation: nonpointchemical contamination, accumulationof toxics in sediment, and habitat dis-turbance. Habitat disturbances can oc-cur through channelization, deforesta-tion, and increased impervious surfaces(parking lots, roads, etc.) and stormdrainage. The latter causes dramaticfluxes in streamflow, often resulting inincreased sediment erosion, organismremoval, and removal of banks and in-stream habitat.

Natural factors (such as geology,hydrology, and soils) and land practices(such as tile drainage and irrigation)affect the vulnerability to contamina-tion because they affect the transportof chemicals over land and into aqui-fers or surface waters. Even in areaswith similar sources of contaminationand land management strategies, dif-ferences in the natural environment canresult in varying degrees of vulnerabil-ity.

NAWQA is now entering its seconddecade of studies. Forty-two study ar-eas will be reassessed in the next tenyears. NAWQA will increase its focuson understanding the links amongsources of contaminants, the transportof contaminants, and the potential ef-fects that contaminants have on hu-mans and aquatic ecosystems.1

Current Approaches to NonpointSource Pollution Control

Next, Dov Weitman, chief of theNonpoint Source Control Branch for

the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA), reported on federalgovernment programs and their successin addressing nonpoint source issues.

Federal ProgramsWeitman began with the observation

that in order to control nonpoint sourcepollution effectively, it is important tounderstand its elements and mecha-nisms. The most significant pollutantfor rivers and streams is sediment.Nutrients and pathogens also are ma-jor pollutants. When sediments enterrivers and streams, they degrade ordestroy habitats. Our radical transfor-mation of the landscape is the root ofour water quality problems. Peoplehave modified forests, grasslands, andprairies from their natural state to usethem for timber, grazing, farming, andurban development.

The federal government became in-volved in nonpoint source pollutioncontrol when Section 319 of the CleanWater Act was enacted in 1987. Thissection was added because the origi-nal act only addressed point sources.Greater federal leadership also wasnecessary to focus state and local non-point source control efforts. Whilethere are no federal regulations asso-ciated with the §319 program, EPAprovides funds to states to deal withnonpoint source pollution issues. Muchof the decision-making process is leftto the individual states. However, cur-rent funding is inadequate. With the 50states, tribes, and territories vying for$238 million, many necessary andworthwhile programs are unfunded.

In addition to funding, debate hasarisen about the models currently be-ing used to assess the success orpotential success of controls. There arefour areas of particular tension: 1) atechnology based vs. water qualitybased approach; 2) a national, state orwatershed scale for management and/or regulation; 3) a regulatory approachor voluntary mechanisms; and 4) fo-cusing on prevention or remediation.


In the technology vs. water qualitydebate, the U.S. Department of Agri-culture has traditionally favored a tech-nological approach. This approach re-lies on the use of best managementpractices (BMPs) that should, and usu-ally do, result in reductions of nonpointsource pollution. This approach, by it-self, does not assure that the cumula-tive effects from multiple landownersand land uses within a watershed willachieve the water quality desired.

The water quality approach has itsbeginnings in the 1965 water pollutionlaw. However, in 1972 Congress en-acted a strong technology-based pointsource permit program in the FederalWater Pollution Control Act. The wa-ter quality approach lost favor when itbecame too cumbersome to effectivelydeal with point sources. With a newfocus on controlling nonpoint sources,particularly at the watershed level, thewater quality based approach has beenrevitalized.

Developing a national nonpointsource control program has been adaunting task. A program that focuseson a state or watershed, such as TotalMaximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), ismore likely to attain specific waterquality standards. The primary prob-lems with the TMDL program are: 1)knowing that specific prescribed mea-sures taken by landowners will actu-ally result in water that meets the setstandard; 2) assuring that measures areimplemented; and 3) providing the es-sential funding. (See TMDL sidebar,at right)

Much of the effort in controllingnonpoint source pollution has focusedon providing incentives and fosteringvoluntary programs. These programshave resulted in significant reductionsof nonpoint source pollution. However,completing the clean up of our watersis going to require that voluntary ac-tions and BMPs be supplemented withmeasures that establish and assureprogress towards attaining water qual-ity standards. Establishing TMDLs,

TMDLs: Integrating Point Sourcesand Nonpoint Sources

In the past, U.S. water quality management has depended upon efflu-ent-based water quality standards and the control of point sources ofpollution. Using these standards, water quality improved but these con-trols did not achieve the national water quality goal of fishable and swim-mable waters. This shortfall was due largely to unregulated nonpointsources. Meeting the water quality goal required a shift from effluent-based to ambient-based water quality standards.

The total maximum daily load (TMDL) program is designed to meetthese ambient water quality goals through the control of both point andnonpoint sources of pollution. A TMDL specifies the maximum amountof a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water qualitystandards, and allocates the allowable pollutant load among point andnonpoint pollutant sources. States must develop TMDLs for all assessedwaters determined to be impaired—about 40 percent of streams, 45 per-cent of lakes and 50 percent of estuaries (EPA, 2002).

TMDLs do not specify how to reduce pollutant loads, only how muchshould be controlled from point sources and how much from nonpointsources. Thus, the current TMDL program is consistent with the find-ings and recommendations of the RNRF Congress delegates.

Although most TMDL determinations are required to meet an eight-to 13-year deadline (from 1992, i.e., 2000 to 2005), states have com-pleted only a minute amount of the required determinations. States haveclaimed that they do not have the personnel or financial resources toassess the condition of their waters and to develop TMDLs. A 2000Government Accounting Office (GAO) report found a pervasive lack ofdata available at the state level to establish water quality standards, todetermine waters that are impaired, and to develop TMDLs. GAO’s find-ings are in concert with the findings of the RNRF Congress that finan-cial support for monitoring is woefully deficient.

Following the GAO report, the National Research Council (NRC) wasasked by the U.S. Congress to assess the scientific basis of the TMDLprogram. NRC’s recommendations were targeted at those issues wherescience can and should make a significant contribution, and at barriersto the use of science in the TMDL program. NRC found that the bestavailable scientific information could be used through the adoption anduse of adequate monitoring and assessment approaches, sound selectionof appropriate models, and adaptive implementation.

The success of these approaches also is highly dependant upon theallocation of adequate personnel and financial resources for data collec-tion, management, and interpretation and for the development of suffi-ciently detailed and stratified water quality standards.

Source:Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management,National Research Council, 2001 (http://books.nap.edu/html/tmdl/)and The Twenty Needs Report: How Research Can Improve the TMDLProgram, U.S. EPA, 2002 (http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/techsupp.html).


particularly in conjunction with well-tailored voluntary BMPs, can lead tothe achievement of desired water qual-ity.

The necessary direction provided bythe §319 funds is critical for theprogram’s success. Weitman discussedthe need to focus on impaired waters.Of the $238 million available, EPAguidelines provide that $100 million beused on problem areas. EPA also hasbeen promoting the increased use of§319 funds for the development ofwatershed-based plans to guide imple-mentation in watersheds containingimpaired waters.

New directions from the Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) de-mand that agencies quantify the suc-cess of their programs. EPA needs toshow that money spent on control pro-grams is yielding results. Thus, numeri-cal goals must be developed. They willhelp the agency respond to this require-ment. However, to establish and meetthese goals requires sufficient monitor-ing to assure that the results are attain-able and progress is being made.

The new farm bill will provide theU.S. Department of Agriculture(USDA) with $700 million for the En-vironmental Quality Incentives Pro-gram (EQIP) and $1 billion in 2004 forEQIP and Conservation Reserve Pro-grams. (See page 19) The question re-mains, however, whether this influx ofmoney will be focused effectively onwater quality problems and thus havea positive effect on water quality.

In closing, Weitman emphasized thatthe primary ways to affect water qual-ity are through education, and theproper appropriation and use of funds.

State ProgramsJim McElfish, senior attorney and

director of the Sustainable Use of LandProgram of the Environmental LawInstitute, presented an update on meth-ods that states are employing to con-trol nonpoint source pollution. He re-iterated the lack of federal enforcement

or regulatory authority associated withthe nonpoint source provisions of theClean Water Act. He also reported theresulting need for states to take neces-sary actions beyond planning and tech-nical assistance. Traditional methodsof planning, technical assistance, vol-untary BMPs, cost sharing for BMPs,and publicly-funded stream buffershave been largely insufficient. Statesneed to develop enforceable mecha-nisms that can be used to protect theirwaters.

These mechanisms are of two types,prescriptive and after-the-fact. Pre-scriptive mechanisms include pollutionabatement orders, required operatingpractices and regulations (or mandatoryBMPs), discharge prohibitions, anddirect enforcement of water qualitystandards. After-the-fact mechanismsinclude nuisance and misdemeanorprosecutions for impacts on publichealth.

The federal government also has pro-vided some influences on the mecha-nisms employed by states. The CoastalZone Act of 1990 requires coastalstates to develop “enforceable policies”in order to receive coastal zone and§319 funding. EPA’s stormwater pro-gram requires bringing stormwater dis-charges previously classified as non-point sources, into the point sourcescheme. TMDLs require states to as-sess impaired waters, determine thesources of pollutants, allocate these tononpoint and point sources, and ad-dress the revealed problems throughstate mechanisms. Finally, concen-trated animal feedlot operations(CAFOs) regulations are being devel-oped by EPA for implementation by thestates.

The Environmental Law Instituteconducted a series of studies on statenonpoint source enforcement authori-ties and programs considering thevariety of mechanisms available to con-trol nonpoint source pollution. (Thestudies are available at http://www.eli.org under “Research”). One

incidental but significant finding of thestudy is “How little monitoring dataexist to assess the effect of any non-point source programs on water qual-ity. Indeed, even where water qualitydata exist for a particular place andtime—demonstrating nutrient impair-ment for example—there is rarely com-parable data from an earlier and latertime that can show trends. Thus, pro-gram effectiveness is expressed in thisstudy in terms of compliance with stan-dards, norms, or BMPs that are be-lieved to protect water quality.”

The study also found that enforce-able mechanisms are already at least asmall part of most states’ nonpointsource programs. Mechanisms relatedto sediment and erosion control re-gimes associated with land-clearingactivities were common. Forest BMPshave been implemented in all statesaccording to the National Associationof State Foresters. However, in 23states that reported on implementationand compliance, a compliance rate ofonly 86 percent was cited.

Animal feeding operations are amajor contributor to nonpoint sourcepollution. Voluntary measures haveproven insufficient because of the cost-liness of many of the remedies, evenwith available cost-sharing provisions.States also must recognize that somenonpoint dischargers will not respondto voluntary measures even if cost shar-ing is available. Thus, back-up mecha-nisms, including, “bad actor” provi-sions (as a last resort), should be avail-able.

Many states already have embracedthe watershed approach and geographi-cally targeted their programs with vary-ing degrees of success. Maryland andVirginia have focused on the Chesa-peake Bay; Wisconsin has had prioritywatersheds since 1978 but currently isphasing them out in favor of a state-wide approach; and Georgia has a rivercorridor protection program that ismandatory by statute but has becomevoluntary in practice.


Technical assistance and cost shar-ing have become extremely significantin nonpoint source control. Many statesdepend upon §319 or farm bill programfunds. A significant number of states,including Maryland and Wisconsin,provide their own investments in cost-sharing programs. However, the rela-tionship between cost-sharing dollarsand enforcement varies. In some cases,there is no explicit link, while in oth-ers, there is an informal understanding.Some programs, such as Maryland’smandatory nutrient planning, providecost-sharing money to support a spe-cific regulatory program. In Ohio,nonpoint source abatement orders areprohibited unless cost-share funds areprovided.

McElfish concluded with the ex-ample of Maryland’s nonpoint sourceprogram, calling it one of the mostcomprehensive and integrated pro-grams using enforceable mechanismsand cost-share arrangements. Programelements include “no discharge” au-thority, mandatory nutrient planningfor agricultural operations, grading andclearing permits for land clearinggreater than 5000 square feet, a forestconservation law, a Chesapeake BayCritical Areas Law, and substantialcost-share funding including up to 87.5percent for agricultural cost-sharing,and up to 50 percent local property taxcredit for agricultural land with soil andwater quality plans and nutrient man-agement plans.

Case Study:Chesapeake Bay

As McElfish reported, Maryland hastaken great steps to control nonpointsource pollution. The impetus and pri-mary beneficiary of these measures isthe Chesapeake Bay. The Bay is NorthAmerica’s largest estuary and providesan excellent example of what can bedone and what still needs to be done tocontrol nonpoint source pollution. Thecase study provided delegates with a

brief course on the Bay Region with aparticular focus on nonpoint sourcepollution.

OverviewDonald Boesch, president, Univer-

sity of Maryland Center for Environ-mental Science, provided delegateswith an overview of the Bay includingthe nature of the problem, the progressmade and likely future challenges.

The region has come to be seen as aleader in the use of a watershed ap-proach to protect a natural resource.Even with such a concerted focus, thereseem to be few clear indications ofprogress. New and greater efforts arenecessary to halt and reverse environ-mental degradation.

The Bay is a large rather shallowcoastal plain estuary with a relativelylarge watershed in relation to its vol-ume. The watershed includes portionsof six states: Maryland, Virginia, Dela-ware, Pennsylvania, West Virginia,New York; and the District of Colum-bia. A mix of land-use types through-out the watershed leads to a diversearray of inputs to the Bay. For example,rapid metropolitan growth is occurringin parts of Maryland, Pennsylvania andaround Washington, D.C. Significantareas of agricultural land also existthroughout the watershed, and a largeatmospheric catchment area is vulner-able to atmospheric deposition of pol-lutants (see page 23).

The greatest challenge in the Bayand across the country is nutrient pol-lution. Nutrient over-enrichment leadsto increased primary aquatic plant/al-gae production, resulting in increasedoxygen demand and anoxia.2 This pro-motes a shift in the biological commu-nity structure, reflected in harmful al-gal blooms and the replacement of seagrasses by macroalgae.

The Chesapeake Bay has seen a sub-stantial decline in submerged seagrasses. In the 1970s, researchersshowed that excess nutrient pollutionstimulated the growth of small algae

that grow on the surface of the sea grassleaves. These “epiphytes” can becomeso dense that they effectively shade thesea grasses and prevent them from con-ducting photosynthesis. The result hasbeen a serious disappearance of seagrasses from nearly 90 percent of the600,000 acres it can potentially inhabit.

Anoxia and hypoxia3 also have oc-curred in the Bay with a three-fold in-crease in volume since 1950 (3 billionm3 in 1950s to 10 billion m3 in 1990s).Coastal eutrophication4 also has in-creased across the country during thisperiod. A NOAA study of 138 coastalestuaries found that 44 had high levelsof eutrophication, and an additional 40had moderate symptoms.

The Gulf of Mexico’s “Dead Zone”is probably the most famous hypoxicarea in the United States. It has beenas large as 12,000 square miles, butvaries seasonally and from year-to-year. Excess nutrient runoff, landscapealterations and river channelizationhave been found to be the leadingcauses. About 90 percent of the nitrateload comes from nonpoint sources,particularly agricultural lands along theupper Mississippi and Ohio Rivers,nearly 1,000 miles upstream from theriver’s mouth.

The Chesapeake Bay Program un-dertook the development of models togauge the problem more accurately andto determine the role various changesin the region would have. Three mod-els simulating interconnected regionalelements were developed: an air-shedmodel, a watershed model, and an es-tuary model. Based on these models,we have seen a decrease in both totalnitrogen load and total phosphorus load(largely due to reductions in pointsources of pollution), but still have notmet the goal established in 1987 of a40 percent reduction by 2000. In fact,inputs from the nonpoint sources havenot decreased.

To meet current goals for the Chesa-peake Bay, key changes must be made.These changes include increased fer-


tilizer efficiency and reduced applica-tion, more effective manure manage-ment, waste management to reduce ni-trogen loss, and a greater emphasis onperennial cropping. In addition, resto-ration of wetlands and riparian zonesmust be part of the solution, along withthe significant reduction in NOX airemissions.

ImplementationLauren Wenzel, deputy director,

Education, Bay Policy and GrowthManagement, Maryland Department ofNatural Resources, concluded the casestudy with a look at the resources andmethods that have been used to pro-tect the Bay.

As Boesch observed, the ChesapeakeBay is a regional resource that requiresregional cooperation to solve its prob-lems. The Chesapeake Bay Agreement,signed in 1983, is the framework forregional cooperation. This agreementhas brought the governors of Maryland,Virginia and Pennsylvania, the mayorof Washington, D.C., the U.S. EPAadministrator, and the Chesapeake BayCommission together in an effort toprotect the Bay.

The concept of tributary strategieswas introduced in 1992 to help meetthe nutrient reduction goal. Strategieswere to be developed by the states foreach major river basin and would thusreflect the land use and nutrient sourceswithin each basin. Additionally, allmajor sewage treatment plants withinthe watershed were to install nutrientremoval systems. The strategies hadfive primary criteria. They needed tobe cost effective, efficient, applicable,fair, and achieve the 40 percent inputreduction goal. In implementing thesestrategies, key practices for reducingnutrients were identified along withefficiencies and implementation tar-gets. The cumulative result of thesepractices was to be the 40 percent loadreduction target.

Maryland brought local govern-ments into the process through partner-

ship agreements. These agreementsprovided tools for implementing tribu-tary strategies. Maryland and Virginiaalso established tributary teams, com-prised of stakeholder groups, to helpimplement the strategies.

Although significant progress wasmade in implementing the strategies,the 40 percent reduction goal was notmet. There was a need for a renewedcommitment to the Bay. It came in thesigning of the Chesapeake 2000 Agree-ment. This agreement looks to fivemissions for further progress: livingresource protection and restoration,vital habitat protection and restoration,water quality protection and restora-tion, sound land use, and stewardshipand community engagement.

The agreement set goals of remov-ing all nutrient and sediment impair-ments to tidal waters by 2010, man-dating zero release of chemical con-taminants from point sources,implementing watershed plans for two-thirds of the Bay watershed by 2010,and continuing efforts to reach andmaintain the 40 percent input reduc-tion.

These new water quality goals areto be met using new tributary strate-gies that are cooperative, watershed-based, comprehensive and strategic.The new strategies are necessary tomeet the more stringent nutrient goalsand the new goals for sediments, habi-tat and land-use. They will focus onimplementation, funding and coordina-tion with the establishment of TMDLs.

Maryland has taken the lead in theimplementation of these strategies andhas focused on five nodes.

• Urban Land: To deal with storm-water, a new stormwater manual hasbeen developed along with a greaterfocus on the use of nonstructural so-lutions such as rain gardens. How-ever, providing continued fundingfor maintenance is a major chal-lenge. Septic systems also haveproven to pose significant problemsin some watersheds. Use of nitrogen

removal systems is being evaluated.• Agriculture: Cost-sharing pro-grams have been a major componentof the control strategies. The pro-grams fund up to 87.5 percent ofcosts. Use of cover crops, particu-larly in fall, helps remove nitrogenfrom the groundwater and reducessoil erosion. Nutrient managementplans now are required. In the man-agement of animal waste, phytase isrequired in feed to reduce phosphate,and focus has been placed on theproper storage and application ofmanure and ammonia management.A manure matching service and cost-share funds for manure transport alsohave been used.• Resource Protection: Over 350marine pump-out stations have beeninstalled using cost-share funds andthe Clean Vessel Act. “No discharge”zones have been established in sen-sitive areas. More than 600 miles ofstreamside buffers have beenplanted. A critical areas law limitsdevelopment within 1,000 feet oftidal waters, and limits density andimpervious surfaces. Shoreline pro-tection also has been an importantfocus, particularly through the estab-lishment of “living shorelines.”• Habitat Goals: Restoration andprotection goals have been estab-lished in each tributary basin for wet-lands, forests and streams.• Public Involvement and Educa-tion: Community “wade-ins,” news-paper supplements, mass mediacampaigns and youth summits havebeen implemented to raise publicawareness.

Several key challenges still exist inthe Chesapeake Bay watershed. Thesechallenges include implementing ma-jor new pollutant reductions, maintain-ing a cap on pollutants—particularlyin the face of continued growth, devel-oping new technologies, changing en-vironmental behavior, getting simplemessages to the public, and reversing


1 Watershed Planning: Watershed planning appliesland use planning techniques, such as watershed-

based zoning, performance zoning, impervious over-lay zoning, urban growth boundaries, large lot zon-ing, infill/community redevelopment, and transfer ofdevelopment rights to redirect development, preservesensitive areas, and maintain or reduce the impervi-ous cover within a given watershed.

2 Land Conservation: Watershed managers mustdecide which natural resources must be conserved.

Typically, lands to be conserved in a sub-watershedcan be categorized as critical habitats, aquatic corri-dors, hydrologic reserve areas, water hazards, and cul-tural areas. Depending upon the categorization, dif-ferent conservation techniques such as land sale to aland trust, land alteration regulation, hazard regula-tions, and open space development can be used to safe-guard the land. These techniques range from absoluteto very limited protection.

3 Aquatic Buffers: Aquatic buffers physically pro-tect and separate a stream, lake, or wetland from

future disturbance or encroachment. These buffers canregulate light and temperature conditions, remove bac-teria, nutrients, and sediment from ground andstormwater, and stabilize and protect the streambed.Due to the importance of buffers, careful considerationabout which kinds of buffers and their width is impor-tant.

4 Better Site Design: Better site design attempts toreduce the impact of site development through im-

proved plans dealing with residential streets and park-ing lots, lot development, and conservation of naturalareas. These plans utilize techniques such as vegetatedislands that provide stormwater filtration, shorter drive-ways, narrow streets, and alternative pavement for over-flow parking in order to reduce impervious cover. Thebetter site design tool appears to function the greatestin sub-watersheds that are approaching their maximumimpervious cover limit.

5 Erosion and Sediment Control: Erosion and sedi-ment controls help mitigate the impact of devel-

opment. During the clearing and grading stage, veg-etation is removed exposing the topsoil to erosion. This

alters the topography and drainage patterns leaving thereceiving waters more vulnerable. By using erosionand sediment control measures, sediment loss duringconstruction is reduced and conservation areas, buff-ers, and forests are not cleared.

6 Stormwater Management Practices: Stormwatermanagement practices (SMPs) are techniques of

building ponds, wetlands, infiltration surfaces, filter-ing systems, and open channels to maintain ground-water recharge and quality, reduce stormwater pollut-ant loads, protect stream channels, prevent increasedoverbank flooding, and safely convey extreme floods.Determining the primary stormwater objectives for asub-watershed will govern the selection, design, andlocation of stormwater management practices at indi-vidual sites.

7 Non-Stormwater Discharges: Non-stormwaterdischarges such as septic systems, sanitary sew-

ers, industrial National Pollution Discharge Elimina-tion System (NPDES) discharges, urban “return flow”water diversions, and runoff from confined animalfeeding lots can contribute significant pollutant loadsto receiving waters. A number of strategies can be usedto minimize these discharges: inspections of privateseptic systems, repairing or replacing failing systems,utilizing more advanced on-site septic controls, iden-tifying and eliminating illicit connections from mu-nicipal stormwater systems, and implementing spillprevention techniques.

8 Watershed Stewardship Programs: Watershedstewardship strives to increase public awareness

about watershed management efforts and to get par-ticipation in the process to ensure stewardship on pri-vate property and homes through watershed advocacy,watershed education, pollution prevention, watershedmaintenance, watershed indicator monitoring, and wa-tershed restoration. Within the context of watershededucation, the four main focuses are watershed aware-ness, personal stewardship, professional training, andwatershed engagement.

Source:Tom Schueler, http://www.stormwatercenter.net/Slideshows/8tools%20for%20smrc/sld001.htm

Eight Tools For Watershed Planning


ity can be maintained. Non-supportingstreams are not likely to ever support afull range of designated uses. Theyconstitute most of the key TMDLs andregulatory problems.

If non-supporting streams are in ar-eas with 25 to 45 percent imperviouscover, restoration is possible. Above 45percent imperviousness, a surfacestream likely cannot be restored. How-ever, smart growth principles appliedin these non-supporting watersheds canprovide protection for more sensitiveareas. An urban drainage classificationfor streams with high impervious covershould be developed.

Communities have excellent oppor-tunities to care for their streams butmunicipal resources have not been or-ganized. Therefore, implementing a“Smart Watershed Program” can helporganize municipal efforts to achievewatershed protection.

Four essential points need to be ex-amined for effective watershed protec-tion.

• Use of the correct unit of produc-tion (small watershed).

• Increase demand for nonpointsource pollution control, and formechanisms such as land trustsand smart growth.

• Set standards of performance.• Require a multidisciplinary ap-

proach for watershed protection.

Endnotes

1 To access data, publications, find-ings and maps from the NAWQAprogram see http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa.

2 Anoxia is the complete absence ofoxygen in the water.

3 Hypoxia is a condition where dis-solved oxygen levels drop below 2mg/L.

4 Eutrophication is the long-term in-crease in the biological productiv-ity of an ecosystem—often as a re-sult of excess nutrients.

(despite significant efforts) the lack ofprogress “in the water” in many areas.

Urban Development’sImpact on Water Quality

Urban development and the increasein associated impervious surfaces havehad a significant impact on water qual-ity. Tom Schueler, executive directorof the Center for Watershed Protection,provided delegates with information onthe extent of the impact and steps thatcan be taken to lessen it.

The increasing effort and commit-ment to combating urban nonpointsource pollution has been a responseto the increased severity of the prob-lem. Conversion of land is the princi-pal culprit. Over 2.5 million acres ofland have been developed resulting in50,000 to 100,000 miles of streamswith degraded habitat, diversity andwater quality. This loss of stream qual-ity intensifies the impact of nonpointsource pollution on other water re-sources such as beaches, estuaries, riv-ers and lakes.

The amount of impervious cover as-sociated with development is a goodindicator of the quality of surroundingstreams. Such impervious cover in-cludes parking lots, roadways, build-ings, roofs, driveways, and sidewalks.At less than 10 percent imperviouscover, good water and stream qualitycan be maintained. Between 10 and 25percent impervious cover, suburbanstreams exhibit a loss of biodiversity,higher pollutant loads and unstablestream channels. Once imperviouscover exceeds 25 percent, the streamsare largely non-supporting of aquaticlife due to increased bacteria, pollut-ants and poor water quality. At 60 per-cent, the streams have become littlemore than urban drainage systems.

When impervious cover is main-tained at less than 10 percent, otherfactors provide better indications of thestream’s quality. Such factors includethe proportion of the watershed with

forest cover, the percentage of culti-vated lands, and the percentage of ri-parian continuity (the proportion ofdrainage network that has stablestreamside forest).

Over 300 studies have evaluated therelationship between impervious coverand hydrologic indicators. The studiesshow that as impervious cover in-creases, so does run-off, flooding andchannel enlargement. This leads to adecrease in stream quality—degradedpool and riffle structure, changes invelocity, an increase in temperature,and a loss of “large woody” debris.Water quality also decreases due to thecollection of pollutants, including met-als, pesticides, and chloride, from theimpervious surfaces. Diversity also isaffected with a decrease in insect, fishand amphibian species.

Eight basic tools have been devel-oped for watershed planning. (See page15.) Little research has been performedto evaluate the effect of these practices.In the few watersheds where these prac-tices have been implemented, researchhas shown a decrease in nitrogen, phos-phorus and bacteria. Aquaticbiodiversity, however, has seen littlechange.

Concentrating on small watershedprovides the best opportunity for reduc-tions in urban nonpoint source pollu-tion. These small watersheds typicallyare two to 10 square miles and alloweasy organization of resources andimplementation of the eight tools forwatershed protection.

Streams can be classified in a num-ber of ways. One system relates streamand watershed characteristics to futurepotential water quality characteristics.In sensitive streams, even low inten-sity residential development will de-grade quality because one- to two-acrelots can result in 10 to 15 percent im-pervious cover. Impacted streamswill decline in quality. However,through application of the eight toolsand goals for retaining forest cover andriparian continuity, much of the qual-


Just as nonpoint source pollution iscaused by multiple sources and land-uses, controlling it requires a multi-fac-eted approach involving education, leg-islation, research, and monitoring.Some components may take longer toachieve noticeable results, but this isno reflection on their importance. Rais-ing public awareness and changinghabits are key components of any con-trol strategy, but they will likely requirea long-term sustained education effort.There are steps that can be taken, par-ticularly by government, resulting inimmediate and lasting effects.

Delegates to the RNRF congressrecognized that government has an im-portant role in controlling nonpointsource water pollution. Responsibili-ties should be divided among the lev-els of government in recognition oftheir capabilities. Many of the pro-grams advocated by the delegates relyon the knowledge and experiencegained from current programs focusedon controlling nonpoint source waterpollution.

Programs such as Best ManagementPractices (BMPs) and Total MaximumDaily Loads (TMDLs) provide valu-able lessons for formulating a multi-faceted and integrated approach tononpoint source pollution control.While BMPs have made important con-tributions to improving water quality,as the sole approach they are insuffi-cient. (See page 18 for more informa-tion on BMPs).

TMDLs place a greater focus on thecharacteristics of a particular region,and take into account all sources of

Controlling Nonpoint Source Pollution

water quality impairment. (See page 11for more information on TMDLs). Uti-lizing BMPs in conjunction withTMDLs can lead to significant im-provement in water quality.

In addition to taking the lead throughfurther development and integration ofthese control programs, governmentmust recognize the need for leadershipand support of essential components ofa nonpoint source pollution controlstrategy.

The Role of Government

One clearly recognized role of gov-ernment is providing the tools neces-sary for evaluating and implementingcontrol strategies.

MonitoringMonitoring data1 are essential for

gauging progress and understandingthe effects of control strategies. Thegovernment cannot set standards ofperformance, determine controls, andestablish goals unless it has data uponwhich to base those decisions. Cur-rently data are limited and come frommultiple sources in forms that are noteasily integrated.

EPA charges states and tribes withmost of the responsibility for monitor-ing in compliance with EPA programs.The quality and quantity of monitor-ing data vary by state and depend large-ly on the states’ financial resources,commitment, and political interest.

USGS conducts extensive chemicalmonitoring through its National StreamQuality Accounting Network

(NASQAN) at fixed locations on largerivers across the country.

The NAWQA program uses a re-gional focus to study status and trendsin water, sediment, and biota. The U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administra-tion, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,and Tennessee Valley Authority con-duct their own water-quality monitor-ing to support their programs and ac-tivities. As Jim McElfish noted, despitethis collective effort, there is littlemonitoring data available to assess theeffect of any nonpoint source controlprogram on water quality.

Water quality monitoring is an es-sential element of any program to con-trol nonpoint source pollution. Despiteits importance, monitoring is chroni-cally under-funded and usually the vic-tim of budget constraints. Such under-funding is likely due to the mindset thatfunding activities and programs is moredesirable than collecting data.

One highly important program laidvictim to funding reductions isNAWQA. Congress establishedNAWQA in 1991 to assess 59 studyunits that covered 65 percent of drink-ing and irrigation water in the U.S.Budget cuts in 2001 led to the elimi-nation of 13 study units and the com-bining of eight units into four. Furtherproposed cuts would eliminate sixmore units, leaving only 36 study units.These cuts would cripple NAWQA’sability to fulfill its original design toassess our nation’s water quality.

An adequate water-gage network,particularly in streams and lakes requir-


ing the development of TMDLs, is es-sential. Without the proper tools toidentify, and then allocate, waste loadson a scientific basis, progress in estab-

BMPs and the American Agricultural SystemWhile nonpoint source pollution cannot be attributed to one land-use

type, agriculture has a key role in its control. Agricultural land consti-tutes over 50 percent of the continental U.S., while urban areas compriseless than five percent. The EPA’s National Water Quality Inventory re-ports that agriculture is the leading source of impairments to surveyedstreams, rivers and lakes. (EPA, 2002).

The Case of Cropland

In the 1950s, fossil fuel based agricultural production systems wereintroduced and American agriculture shifted from a nutrient cycling sys-tem to an input/output system. Such systems almost exclusively derivenecessary nutrients from outside inputs. Reliance on these outside inputshas caused farm operations to specialize, standardize and simplify. Thisspecialization and the current system of subsidies has led to decreasedcrop diversity and dependence on fossil fuel inputs for fertility and pestcontrol. Agricultural price supports have led farmers to increase inputsof fertilizers, pesticides and irrigation water in the hope of maximizingyield. This shift in farming operations also has led to soil degradation,nutrient pollution and imperiled water systems.

The current farming system relies on best management practices(BMPs) to reduce impacts on surrounding water resources. BMPs are acombination of management, cultural, and structural practices that agri-cultural scientists, the government, or some other planning agency de-cides upon to be the most effective and economical way of controllingproblems. They constitute a technological approach to controllingnonpoint source pollution. The goal is to make impacts on water qualityacceptable. However, it must be recognized that BMPs are not univer-sally effective; they have varying degrees of success depending uponsoils, hydrology, weather and location in the watershed. A comprehen-sive assessment of current BMPs and their success in different environ-ments should be conducted.

Present day economics of farming leave little margin to implementthe necessary BMPs. Consumers expect cheap food while farmers incurhigh costs for fuel, fertilizers, pesticides and equipment. Measures tocontrol nonpoint source pollution only add to these costs. In fact, manyfarmers lease farmland from large corporations at rates that do not pro-vide for soil and water conservation measures in the overall cost of pro-duction. Farmers look to the government to provide the financial assis-tance necessary to implement BMPs. Such financial assistance couldcome in the form of subsidies or through §319 cost-sharing programs.The reinvigoration and reauthorization of conservation programs associ-ated with the farm bill may provide the needed impetus and resources.Sustainable farming methods must be advanced—and powerful farm in-terests must be overcome.

lishing TMDLs will be hindered andsubject to challenges. Water resourceprofessionals at the RNRF congress es-timated that adequate monitoring data

would require at least twice the cur-rent funding, and that the long-termbenefits would far outweigh the costs.

ResearchGovernment also should fund re-

search into some of the most pressingquestions in nonpoint source pollutioncontrol. Research needs include: 1)developing the highly efficient model-ing and monitoring tools necessary toevaluate control potential and progress,2) assessing alternative agriculturalmethods and application methods thatproduce less pollution, 3) reducing theuncertainty in the effects of pesticidesand other contaminants, 4) studyinghuman beliefs, behaviors, awarenessand preferences related to nonpointsource pollution including householdwaste and yard management practices,and 5) improving tracking of chemicaluse to attribute specific pollutants tosources to support management deci-sions.

Other ToolsOther tools that government should

develop and improve are models andtemplates. These tools must be appro-priate for a particular ecosystem, wa-tershed, issue, or locale. One size doesnot fit all. Appropriate monitoring isimportant to the proper functioning ofthese tools—they depend on data forvalidation or verification.

Technical assistance is another im-portant tool but it must be tailored tofit the needs and abilities of the com-munity. Existing programs such asCooperative Extension—administeredthrough land-grant colleges and univer-sities—and Natural Resources Conser-vation Service (NRCS) programs al-ready provide high quality technicalassistance. However, Cooperative Ex-tension recently has suffered significantfunding cuts. This on-the-ground pro-gram needs to be expanded to reachboth rural areas and those currentlyunderserved in urban/suburban areas(e.g., homeowners, gardeners).


Financial IncentivesFinancial incentive programs are

important but require funding or theforgoing of revenue. Financial incen-tives can take the form of subsidies ortax credits to support prevention andrestoration projects, or foregone rev-enues in recognition of nonpoint sourcereduction activities.

The recently passed Farm Bill pro-vides and continues these types of in-centives in agriculture through the cre-ation or enhancement of programs likethe Conservation Reserve Program(CRP), Wetlands Reserve Program(WRP), and Environmental QualityIncentives Program (EQIP).2 However,sustaining funding and farmer partici-pation are key.

Very few programs of this type existfor nonpoint source pollution associ-ated with urban or suburban areas. Theyshould be developed and implemented.Individual landowners, whether theyare developers, farmers, ranchers, mineor commercial forest operators, or sub-urban residents, make land use deci-sions with little direct legal or finan-cial incentive to consider the effect onhydrological processes and water qual-ity. They rarely consider how addingimpervious surface or applying extrafertilizer contributes to nonpoint sourcepollution.

Providing tax credits for good prac-tices, and providing cost-share fundsfor projects can help motivate peopleto “do the right thing.” Another incen-tive could be the granting of impervi-ous surface credits and the establish-ment of credit banks that would encour-age reductions in impervious surfaces.When providing incentives, govern-ment must be sensitive to the balancebetween private property rights and theneed for behavior modification.

EducationEducation is a crucial component of

any control strategy. The government’srole in education includes ensuring thatthere is adequate funding for necessary

materials and instruction. One meansof securing this funding is throughtaxes on consumer products that con-tribute to the nonpoint source pollutionproblem. These products include fer-tilizers, pesticides, and herbicides.

While such a tax will not likely al-ter the public’s purchasing habits im-mediately, it will raise awareness(“What is this extra five cents for?”)and provide funds for a much needededucation effort. Requiring a watereducation component in secondaryschools also is essential. Governmentalso is responsible for the proper edu-cation of its employees. For more rec-ommendations regarding the nonpointsource education need, see page 20.

LegislationLegislation must be properly framed

to accomplish nonpoint source pollu-tion control goals. Zoning and planninglaws in particular can be utilized toencourage environmentally sensitivedevelopment patterns and on-site miti-gation techniques. For example, Balti-more County, Maryland required broadriparian buffers and stormwater con-tainment areas in the newly developedOwings Mills New Town.

Many existing laws do not recognizethe interconnectedness of resources.Linking and clarifying relevant exist-ing laws to provide nonpoint sourcepollution control can strengthen cur-rent control programs. For example,instances of breast cancer on Long Is-land prompted New York to pass theNeighbor Notification Act for pesti-cides. The act focused on the transportof pesticides through the air but did notrecognize the significant impact pesti-cide application has on water resources.Such a law could have provided anopportunity to recognize the role pes-ticides play in nonpoint source pollu-tion—and do something about it.

Exemptions from nonpoint sourceregulations must be drastically cur-tailed or eliminated. Nonpoint sourcepollution will not be controlled if large

numbers of polluters are exemptedfrom regulations. For example, somestates have laws that limit the dischargeof any substance without a permit, butstatutory or regulatory exemptions maybe given for forestry or agriculturalactivities.

When framing regulations, it is im-portant to include the eight tools forwatershed planning introduced by TomSchueler. These tools are: watershedplanning, conservation, aquatic buffers,better site design, erosion and sedimentcontrol, stormwater management prac-tices, non-stormwater discharges, andwatershed stewardship programs. Seepage 15.

Performing the Roles

Natural resources—including waterand air—do not recognize politicalboundaries but must be protected andmanaged by entities that do. Thus, aneffective division of labor among gov-ernments must be determined. All del-egates recognized the importance ofconsidering local land and water char-acteristics, and the needs of local com-munities. Ultimately, whatever is doneto control or mitigate nonpoint sourcewater pollution will be done locally.An approach that was popular amongdelegates was to recognize the leader-ship of the federal government in es-tablishing a framework and goals, andin providing knowledge and skills,while looking to state and local gov-ernments to develop strategies forimplementation and advance commu-nication and educational opportunities.

Regional management structureswith authority to address inter-jurisdic-tional pollution issues, particularly ata watershed level, need to be devel-oped. In designing these structures, weneed to study current models, such asSoil and Water Conservation Districts,Florida’s Water Management Districts,and Nebraska’s Natural Resource Dis-tricts. These models for regional co-operation can work effectively within


states. However, management of wa-tersheds that extend beyond stateboundaries presents a much greaterchallenge. There are no regional gov-ernment structures in the United Statesthat have the authority necessary todeal effectively with nonpoint sourcewater pollution. Only the federal gov-ernment, through its constitutional in-terstate commerce powers, could en-force a regulatory regime to protect amulti-state watershed. River basincommissions are a good example ofscope and cooperation, but they lackthe necessary authority. There is noconsensus in the United States Con-gress (or among the public) that suchfederal action is warranted at this time.

Developing PartnershipsDeveloping partnerships is essential

to accomplishing local and regionalgoals. Partnerships among govern-ments also are necessary to improvecooperation and effectiveness. The useof memoranda of understanding(MOUs)3 between and among agenciescan solidify these partnerships. MOUscan benefit particularly from directionsprovided by the relevant congressionalcommittees. In 1992, the EPA andUSGS signed an MOU to provide theframework for cooperation in the con-duct of water quality monitoring andassessment activities.

Partnerships such as the ChesapeakeBay Program4 can provide the frame-work for other regional and intergov-ernmental cooperatives. These inter-agency partnerships would likely re-quire executive or legislative orders tointegrate activities or programs.

A mentoring or exchange programbetween and among state and federalagencies could build cooperation andunderstanding as employees learn thechallenges, goals and constraints ofother agencies. For example, an NRCSor USDA Forest Service employee withresponsibility for implementing BMPscould be assigned to the EPA NonpointSource Control Branch for six months,

or an EPA employee could be assignedto work in the North Carolina Depart-ment of Environment and Natural Re-sources’ Nonpoint Source Office.

Partnerships between governmentand nongovernmental organizations(NGOs) also can improve program ef-fectiveness. Section 319 of the CleanWater Act could fund NGOs to orga-nize river basin facilitation, bringingall interested parties in the watershedtogether to develop strategies to solvelocal nonpoint source problems.

However, an NGO must remain in-dependent and have the freedom toadvocate a position that may be con-trary to the supporting agency. NGOsalso may be ideal for forming clear-inghouses of watershed and nonpointsource information.

Education

While significant progress can bemade through the actions of govern-ment, education for all segments ofsociety is critical for long-term success.The Clean Water Act and other envi-ronmental efforts of the past thirtyyears have given society a good under-standing of point source pollution fromfactories and sewage treatment plants.

Nonpoint source pollution has notreceived the same attention. Thus, mostpeople are unaware of nonpoint sourcepollution and how their behavior con-tributes to the problem. Nearly nine in10 Americans (86 percent) are unfamil-iar with the term nonpoint source pol-lution (National Geographic Society,2001). This situation presents an obvi-ous question. How can people be madeaware of their role and thus changetheir habits?

Regional workshops and meetingsshould be conducted to foster issueawareness and participation among es-sential interests and regional leaders.Such workshops would feature oppor-tunities for natural resource profession-als to come together to discuss issuesspecific to that region. These work-

shops also should include participationby schoolteachers and community vol-unteers. These influential people canamplify the message by bringing it totheir classrooms and community.

LegislatorsEducating legislators must be a

prominent part of the strategy to com-bat nonpoint source water pollution.Legislators are key decision-makerswho must understand the problem andthe best control strategies.

Many political decisions haveimpacts on water quality. Particularlyat the local level, land-use decisionsrequire consideration of many complexcommunity issues, including naturalresource management and use.Through watershed managementclasses or programs such as NonpointEducation for Municipal Officers(NEMO)5, officials can learn about theissues and make better decisions in thefuture.

Showcasing pilot projects and suc-cess stories can provide legislators withinformation about measures that work.6

However, the reasons behind a project’ssuccess must be understood. Did a par-ticular area’s demographics, geographyor political climate contribute to thesuccess? Can a “repeatable recipe” bedeveloped? Many of the reported suc-cess stories are in narrative form, butlegislators typically desire results re-ported with numbers and statistics tofully understand the impact of the suc-cesses and to communicate them toothers. More importantly, legislatorsneed statistics on the cost of nonpointsource pollution to society. What im-pact has it had on the economy, jobs,and human health?

Communication with legislators canbe enhanced by showing how issues areaffecting their constituents. Pointingout the causes of decreases in under-water grasses in the Chesapeake Bayor oyster disease in North Carolina, canbring urgency to a problem.

In addition to using local examples,


the message can be more effective ifdelivered by local citizens. Regionalworkshops can be an excellent meansof educating people and stimulatingaction. The issue should be presentedin an easily understood manner. Thebuilding of coalitions, particularlyamong organizations not typicallylinked, can be especially effective inraising awareness and building cred-ibility with legislators.

Resource ProfessionalsNatural resources professionals have

varied backgrounds and responsibili-ties, but many of their actions impactwater quality. Assuring that these im-pacts are understood and anticipated isessential. Professional societies canimprove awareness and practicethrough continuing education, certifi-cation and publications.

Some congress delegates thoughtthat a certification program for non-point source professionals would beideal. Certification could be awardedthrough an umbrella organization thatbrings together all relevant professionalsocieties. Certification would requirea training base in elements of biology,chemistry, hydrology, soils, forestry,statistics, geography, GIS, geology,economics, social sciences, engineer-ing, public policy, and communica-tions.

Some delegates believed establish-ing a new nonpoint source professionalsociety was warranted. It could raiseawareness of both the public and natu-ral resources professionals. Anothersuggestion was that the State WaterResources Research Institutes (WRRI)7

be revitalized as coordinators of theseactivities. Finally, some delegates be-lieved that existing professional soci-eties already are making good effortsin addressing various facets of thenonpoint source problem. They thoughtthat existing support from government,academia and private industry shouldbe consolidated in support of these con-tinuing efforts.

The PublicAmericans generally lack basic

knowledge about their water resources.They fail to appreciate that they are partof a larger interrelated system in whichtheir actions have negative effects, andthey are unaware of the extent to whichwaters are in danger. Only 17 percentidentified human actions in the water-shed—agricultural run-off and urbansprawl—as the major threats to rivers(National Geographic Society, 2001).The complexities of nonpoint sourcepollution make public understandingan even greater challenge. Yet, the pub-lic is key to success.

Using the MediaCreating a nonpoint source market-

ing campaign would be a valuable firststep in raising awareness. Successfulprograms from other natural resourcesectors, like Smokey the Bear orWoodsy the Owl, can be models. Aneasily recognized nonpoint sourcelogo, mascot, and slogan should bedeveloped. One popular suggestion indeveloping a marketing campaign wasto change the name of “nonpoint sourcepollution.” Another term might be moredescriptive and easily understood bynon-scientists. Although there was noconsensus on the new name, some sug-gestions include: watershed pollution,runoff pollution, polluted runoff, point-less pollution, phantom pollution, andpersonal pollution.13

Better utilization of existing re-sources in the media could contributeto a more informed public. For ex-ample, weather forecasters could teachtelevision viewers about nonpointsource pollution. They already areadept at explaining technical informa-tion about the weather in terms that areeasily understood.

Weather forecasters could introducethe concept of watersheds and givecurrent hydrologic and water qualityconditions. A nonpoint source univer-sity for weatherpeople, reporters andother important media personalities

could improve reporting on water qual-ity issues.

Targeted public service announce-ments can raise awareness at opportunetimes. For example, Memorial Dayweekend would be an ideal time toexplain how to properly apply fertil-izer on lawns. Integrating nonpointsource pollution education conceptsinto relevant television shows, such ason HGTV (Home and Garden Televi-sion), also will convey the message toan important audience.

Create a Sense of PlaceIt is important to instill in people a

sense of place. When people feel thatthey are part of a community, they aremore sensitive and concerned abouthow their actions affect their environ-ment. Creating a sense of place re-quires making people aware of theirecological “address” and knowing theirlocal watershed (e.g., Bethesda, Mary-land, Middle Potomac Watershed).

One way of bringing the local wa-tershed into people’s consciousness isthrough an introduction to their localstream, and how their activities impactthat stream. One suggestion was tohave an “Adopt a Stream” campaign,just as groups “Adopt a Highway” tokeep communities litter-free. Somecommunities already have begun toprovide signs letting people know thatthey are crossing into a particular wa-tershed, but the practice needs to beexpanded across the country.

Community groups such as Kiwanisand Rotary clubs could be effective inraising awareness about nonpointsource pollution. These groups arededicated to serving their communitiesand helping people all over the world.Volunteers usually are active in theircommunities and could be effective inteaching others. Volunteer monitoringprograms have begun across the coun-try and have been effective in educat-ing people about the environmentaldynamics within their local watershed.

Other community resources can be


used to raise awareness. When the lo-cal health department issues pollutedriver warnings or fish advisories, itshould take the opportunity to explainthe causes of those warnings and howeveryday activities contribute.

Cooperative extension agents canmeet with local homeowners to discussproper lawn care and other householdactivities. Locally tailored informationon nonpoint source pollution, water-

sheds and water quality could be in-cluded in water and sewer bills.

Requiring all sellers of pesticides,herbicides, and fertilizers to be licensedand provide extensive instructions forconsumers before they purchase suchproducts can help educate a criticalgroup.9 Requiring more stringent label-ing on these products regarding non-point source pollution and its impactson local waterways and human health

may act as a deterrent or provide aneducational opportunity. Stricter neigh-bor notification requirements for con-sumer use, including providing the nec-essary flags as an attachment to thecontainer, also could raise awarenessand limit product use.

It has long been said that the bestway to educate is “to lead by example.”Providing education and assuringproper practices among visible profes-

Representative Worldwide PBT Emissions to theAtmosphere, 1850-1990 (yearly average in tons)

Period Cadmium Copper Lead Nickel Zinc1850-1900 380 1,800 22,000 240 17,0001901-1910 900 5,300 47,000 800 39,0001911-1920 1,100 8,000 49,000 2,100 49,0001921-1930 1,400 9,600 110,000 2,100 62,0001931-1940 1,700 12,000 170,000 4,900 75,0001941-1950 2,200 17,000 170,000 8,000 96,0001951-1960 3,400 23,000 270,000 14,000 150,0001961-1970 5,400 44,000 370,000 26,000 240,0001971-1980 7,400 59,000 430,000 42,000 330,0001981-1990 5,900 47,000 340,000 33,000 260,000

Source: McNeill, J.R., Something New Under the Sun: An Environmental History ofthe Twentieth Century World. New York: Norton, 2000.

Persistent bioaccumulative toxins(PBTs) are damaging or fatal chemi-cals that linger in the environmentand build-up in the food chain. Theyresult in toxic levels, even if re-leased in small, legally allowablequantities. PBTs include commontoxins such as DDT, lead, arsenic,cyanide, dioxins, mercury and poly-chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).These contaminants adversely affecthuman health including effects onthe nervous system, reproductiveand developmental problems, can-cer, and genetic impacts. The U.S.fish supply continues to contain sig-nificant levels of PBTs, even aftersome of their uses have been bannedor curtailed. From 1993 to 1997, thetotal number of fish advisories in the

U.S. increased by 80 percent, and thenumber of waterbodies under advisorynearly doubled from 1,278 to 2,299. Allof the substances causing the adviso-ries are PBTs.

PBTs enter the environment throughemissions from industrial facilities andthrough the use and disposal of con-sumer products that utilize them intheir manufacture. Industrial processesthat emit PBTs include coal-firedpower plants, steel works and thechemical industry. These emissionsinevitably result in the atmosphericdeposition of PBTs miles away fromtheir initial sources.

Most consumers are unaware thateveryday products contain PBTs andthe hazards associated with them. Thegrowing use of cellular phones, com-

puters and other electronic productshas contributed to the PBT problem.Such products contain printed wir-ing boards, LCDs and batteries thatcontain contaminants such as lead,mercury, arsenic, cadmium, zincand a host of other hazardous sub-stances. Printed wiring boards con-tained in all electronic products arethe second largest source of lead inthe U.S. municipal waste stream.Other PBT-containing products in-clude paints and printing inks withheavy metals, and toys containingtoxic plasticizers. When these prod-ucts are disposed of or used, thePBTs enter the water supply throughatmospheric deposition due to incin-eration, runoff from applied sur-faces, leaching from landfills, or im-proper disposal.

Some efforts have been made toreduce PBT use and/or exposure.Federal and state governments haveimplemented purchasing systemsencouraging PBT-free alternatives.Industry partnerships with EPA alsoseek to reduce PBT use in manu-facture. PBTs should be consideredin all future nonpoint source con-trol strategies.

Source: U.S. EPA PBT factsheet(http://www.epa.gov/pbt/fact.htm)and Inform, Inc. (http://www.informinc.org).

The Role of PBTs in NPS


sionals such as park maintenance per-sonnel, landscapers, lawn treatmentcompanies, and golf course managerscan give the public models for theirown activities.

Children are a Key PopulationAnother effective means of increas-

ing nonpoint source knowledge is byeducating children and teachers. Asevidenced by recycling programs, oncechildren become excited about a pro-

© P

ew O

cean

s C

omm

issi

on

gram, they will teach others, includ-ing their parents.

First, however, the teachers need tobe reached and recruited. Special work-shops could give them teaching mate-rials, resources, and activities. Aneducational materials clearinghouseshould be developed to collect and dis-till current information. An environ-mental education element should beincorporated into the curriculum ofevery school. This element can revolve

around field trips that “follow a rain-drop” through the ecosystem and intro-duce children to their local watershed.The students would see first-hand theeffects of nonpoint source pollution,including the impacts their own activi-ties have on the watershed. Creatingspecial children’s events, like theGroundwater Festival in Nebraska, andinvolving groups such as 4-H andscouts also could be effective in edu-cating children.

Air Pollution’s Impact on Nonpoint Source PollutionPollutants reach surface waters

through a variety of mechanismsbut the most under-recognized isatmospheric deposition. Atmo-spheric deposition is the transportof pollutants through the air withan eventual deposit on surface wa-ters directly or through runoff fromland surfaces. These pollutants en-ter the atmosphere through a vari-ety of sources and travel great dis-tances before finally being depos-ited.

Soot, NOX, and SO2, are re-leased into the atmosphere throughhuman activities (burning fossilfuels) and from natural sources(forests, volcanoes and wildfires).Many other atmospheric pollutantssuch as PCBs and chlorofluorocar-bons (CFCs) are only derived fromhuman activity. Specific sources ofatmospheric pollutants typicallyare divided into three categories:stationary (power plants, refiner-ies and incinerators), mobile (cars,aircraft, trains, and ships), and area(volatilization of ammonia frommanure).

Atmospheric deposition is a sig-nificant source of nonpoint sourcepollution. The geographic regionin which the introduction of atmo-spheric pollutants may affect a par-

ticular land area—the airshed—asso-ciated with a particular watershed canextend hundreds of miles beyond thewatershed’s boundary. The airshed forthe Chesapeake Bay, for example, in-cludes all of Maryland, Delaware, Vir-ginia, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, andOhio and extends to portions of Ver-mont, Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky,Tennessee, South Carolina, NorthCarolina, New Jersey, and New York.

Generally, forest streams in the east-ern U.S. have higher nitrogen levelsthan in the western U.S., partially dueto atmospheric deposition. However,Lake Tahoe in California and Utah hasshifted from a nitrogen-limited systemto phosphorus limited (for algae

growth) due to atmospheric depo-sition of nitrogen. The global res-ervoir of atmospheric mercury, forexample, has increased by a fac-tor of two to five since the begin-ning of industrialization and isdominated by human sources.Over 80 percent of this mercury isdue to combustion processes suchas coal burning and medical andmunicipal waste incineration.

Source:Marine Pollution in the UnitedStates, Boesch, D.F., et. al., PewOceans Commission, 2001. http://www.pewoceans.org/oceanfacts/2002/01/11/fact_22987.asp.


Challenges to Control

Many challenges need to be over-come before nonpoint source pollutioncontrols can succeed. One challenge isassuring that adequate funding is avail-able for the necessary programs includ-ing education, cost-sharing, monitor-ing, infrastructure, and local initiatives.Also, more attention must be given toatmospheric deposition and rural resi-dential issues such as septic systemsand package water treatment systems.10

See left for information on atmosphericdeposition. Other suggestions includeimproving practices on tribal lands,engaging soil and water conservationdistricts as more active participants,protecting all streams instead of justfunding programs for impaired ones (itis cheaper to maintain than to restore),and giving localities within states morecontrol of programs.

Literature Cited

Environmental Protection Agency,2002. National Water Quality Inven-tory: 2000 Report, EPA-841-R-02-001,http://www.epa.gov/305b.

National Geographic Society, 2001.National Geographic Society RiverPoll. Conducted June 2001. Penn,Schoen & Berland Associates, Wash-ington, DC.

United States Geological Survey,1999. The Quality of Our Nation’sWaters: Nutrients and Pesticides, Cir-cular 1225, http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa.

Endnotes

1 Monitoring is the collection of dataused to determine the qualities of aparticular resource.

2 See http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/crp/, http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/wrp/, and http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/eqip/, respectively.

3 An MOU is a formal document thatoutlines goals, concerns, and thenature of cooperative efforts be-tween two or more agencies.

4 The Chesapeake Bay Program is aunique regional partnership that hasled and directed the restoration ofthe Chesapeake Bay since 1983.Partners include the states of Mary-land, Pennsylvania and Virginia; theDistrict of Columbia; the Chesa-peake Bay Commission, a tri-statelegislative body; the EnvironmentalProtection Agency; and participat-ing citizen advisory groups. Seehttp://www.chesapeakebay.net formore information.

5 NEMO is a program developed byConnecticut Cooperative Extensionthat educates local land-use officialsabout the links between land-useplanning and natural resource pro-tection. For more information, visithttp://nemo.uconn.edu/.

6 Previous compilations of successstories that can be built on upon ormodified for use by legislators in-clude: Watershed Success Stories:Applying the Principles and Spiritof the Clean Water Action Plan,http://www.cleanwater.gov/success/and Stream Corridor RestorationDemonstration Projects/NationalShowcase Watersheds, http://www.epa.gov/owow/showcase/.

7 This program, authorized by §104of the Water Resources ResearchAct of 1984, is a Federal-State part-nership which:• Plans, facilitates, and conducts re-

search to aid in the resolution ofState and regional water problems

• Promotes technology transfer andthe dissemination and applicationof research results

• Provides for the training of sci-entists and engineers through theirparticipation in research

• Provides for competitive grants tobe awarded under the Water Re-sources Research Act

Individual state water resource re-search institutes have been estab-lished, typically at land grant uni-versities, to fulfill the states’ role inthis program. Federal funding forthis program has been threatened.See http://water.usgs.gov/wrri/ formore information.

8 The State of Florida, for example,uses “pointless personal pollution”in their nonpoint source educationcampaign,http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/stormwater/docs/nonpoint/ppp.pdf.

9 New York State’s NeighborNotification Law was passed in2000. The law requires retailestablishments that sell generaluse lawn pesticides to post signsthat:

1. Warn people to follow theinformation on the label,

2. Inform homeowners that theymust post signs along theirproperty boundaries when usingsuch products, and

3. Encourage consumers to notifyneighbors that they are usingpesticides.

See http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dshm/pesticid/neighbor.htm for more informa-tion.

10 Package water treatment systemsare pre-designed for use in ruralcommunities or areas where cost ortime make an extensive planningand design process impractical. Thesystems rarely take into account theneeds of a specific community andits resources.


Appendix A: RNRF Congresses History & Procedures

Sustaining the Earth’s resources is acomplicated challenge and demandsdiverse perspectives and expertise.Recognizing the need for an interdis-ciplinary approach, RNRF brings to-gether representatives from its mem-ber organizations, federal and stateagencies, academic institutions, andother professional and scientific orga-nizations. The congresses examinetimely issues affecting the environmentand natural resources and amplify thevoice of the scientific community.These diverse gatherings have helpeddefine issues and suggest promising so-lutions.

Delegates are nominated by RNRF’smember organizations. They includegeographically diverse representativesof the natural, physical and social sci-ences.

Congress History

In 1992, RNRF convened its firstcongress, “Critical Issues and Conceptsfor the 21st Century,” to outline priori-ties for sustainability. Congress del-egates explored overpopulation, eco-nomic development, management ofhealthy ecosystems, maintaining re-newable resources, and methods tocope with climate-induced environ-mental change. Delegates met in work-ing groups and identified over 120major issues and recommended spe-cific actions to address them.

The second congress in 1996 focusedon the emerging technology of geo-graphic information systems (GIS) andits application to the sustainability ofrenewable natural resources. GIS is asoftware system that provides and in-tegrates multifaceted information fora given place. Delegates discussed howGIS could empower citizens and com-

munities to participate more effectivelyin land-use planning to sustain theirnatural resources.

In 1998, delegates explored the im-pact of human population growth onthe ability to sustain renewable natu-ral resources. Important steps in mov-ing toward a sustainable society in-cluded stopping population growth,limiting sprawl and the extravagant useof land, preserving critical elements ofthe natural environment, controllingpollution, moderating consumption ofnatural resources, and using naturalresources more efficiently.

Findings and recommendations fromthe two congresses on sustainabilitysuggested that current governmentstructures are not facilitating move-ment towards sustainable land use.These concerns were the catalyst forRNRF’s fourth congress, “PromotingSustainability in the 21st Century,” con-vened in 2000.

Recognizing that there is no consen-sus in the United States Congress (oramong the public) to institute a nationalprogram of sustainable land use, andactions by communities are insufficientin geographic scope, RNRF’s fourthcongress examined regional tools andstrategies.

Upon examination of regional plan-ning efforts in South Florida, southernCalifornia, and the Pacific Northwest,delegates concluded that regional ap-proaches continue to be hampered bythe lack of institutions with cross-ju-risdictional authority. A second focusof the congress was on the evolvingroles of resource professionals and theeducation and training they will needto be successful in fulfilling their newresponsibilities.

Congress reports are available athttp://www.rnrf.org.

The Fifth National Congress

Recognizing the complex, multi-disciplinary nature and inherent diffi-culty in nonpoint source pollution con-trol, RNRF convened its fifth nationalcongress, “Control of Nonpoint SourceWater Pollution: Options and Oppor-tunities.” Delegates from 27 states rep-resenting a wide spectrum of disci-plines came together in Baltimore,Maryland, September 18–21, 2002 (seeAppendix B for complete listing of del-egates). Among the delegates wereprominent natural resources profes-sionals from universities, nongovern-mental organizations, industry, andgovernment.

Prior to the congress, delegates wereasked to complete a survey to assesscurrent issues related to the control ofnonpoint source pollution. Nearly 40percent of the delegates participated,and the results were used to determineand address the highest priority issues.A summary of the congress survey re-sults is available from RNRF’s web-site at http://www.rnrf.org/2002con-gress.

A pre-congress field trip throughBaltimore County, Maryland, provideddelegates with first-hand knowledgeabout current conditions and manage-ment programs. Donald Outen, Natu-ral Resource Manager, BaltimoreCounty Department of EnvironmentalProtection and Resource Management,served as the guide. Delegates touredtwo stream restoration and stormwaterretrofit projects (Long Quarter Branchand Spring Branch) located in water-sheds developed prior to stormwaterand stream protection regulations.Next, delegates visited one of the larg-est farming operations in the area todiscuss agricultural Best Management


Practices (BMPs) and nutrient manage-ment plans. Finally, delegates touredOwings Mills New Town, a new devel-opment within the county’s growthboundary that incorporates mandatorystream buffers, stormwater manage-ment systems and reduced impervioussurfaces to minimize its impact on thesurrounding resources.

Two keynote speakers provided fo-cus and perspective for congress del-egates. Margaret A. Davidson, Direc-tor, National Ocean Service and Act-ing Assistant Administrator for OceanServices and Coastal Zone Manage-ment, National Oceanic and Atmo-spheric Administration, describedNOAA’s programs to control nonpointsource pollution, particularly along ourcoasts. Maryland Governor ParrisGlendening discussed challenges asso-ciated with instituting Smart Growthprograms and protecting the Chesa-peake Bay.

Each congress begins with plenarysessions during which issues areframed and up-to-date information ispresented.

Working Groups

Following a day of plenary sessions,delegates met for most of the secondday in working groups. A diverse mixof delegates in each working groupengaged in discussions to define theissues and suggest solutions and op-tions.

Four topics provided the basis for theworking groups’ deliberations:

• Methods and Strategies of Controland Overcoming Legislative Bar-riers;

• Educating the Public and Defin-ing Their Role;

• Roles and Responsibilities of Lo-cal, State and Federal Governmentand Opportunities for Partnership;and

• The Education of Resource Profes-sionals in Nonpoint Source Pre-vention and Control.

On September 20, delegates met inworking groups for more than an houron each of the four topics. Delegateswere assigned to working groups toensure geographic and disciplinary di-

versity. The composition of the work-ing groups was changed with each ses-sion.

A chair, a facilitator, and a recorderadministered each working group ses-sion. The chairs were selected fromamong the delegates. The congresshost, the Department of Natural Re-source Sciences and Landscape Archi-tecture at the University of Maryland,provided facilitators and recorders.Facilitators were professors or exten-sion specialists and recorders weregraduate students or extension assis-tants.

Although working groups did notformally vote on findings and recom-mendations, consensus was informallynoted and recorded by the chairs.Chairs presented a summary of theirworking group’s findings, recommen-dations, and conclusions at a wrap-upsession on September 21. This sessionprovided delegates with an early op-portunity to react to and comment onthe findings. Delegates also had theopportunity to comment on the draftreport.


Appendix B: List of Delegates

Sam AlbrechtRNRF Board of DirectorsExecutive DirectorSociety forRange ManagementLakewood, CO

Elaine AndrewsExecutive DirectorNorth AmericanAssociation forEnvironmental EducationMadison, WI

Jerry BernardNational GeologistUSDA-Natural ResourcesConservation ServiceWashington, DC

Peter Black*Professor EmeritusWater & Related LandResourcesSUNY EnvironmentalScience and ForestrySyracuse, NY

Deen BoeRNRF Board of DirectorsWashington RepresentativeSociety forRange ManagementCrimora, VA

Donald BoeschPresidentUniversity of MarylandCenter forEnvironmental ScienceCambridge, MD

Mark BoyerAssistant ProfessorLandscape ArchitectureUniversity of ArkansasFayetteville, AR

Bill BoyerResource ConservationistUSDA–Natural ResourcesConservation ServiceWashington, DC

Robert Bricker***Regional NutrientManagement SpecialistUniversity of MarylandUpper Marlboro, MD

Gregory N. Brown*DeanCollege ofNatural ResourcesVirginia TechBlacksburg, VA

Mark Bundy*DirectorEducation, Bay Policy andGrowth ManagementMaryland Department ofNatural ResourcesAnnapolis, MD

David ByersEnvironmental EducatorLow Country InstituteSpring Island, SC

C. Paul CallahanConsultantLand & Water Consulting,Inc.Missoula, MT

Vernon CardwellRNRF Board of DirectorsAgronomy DepartmentUniversity of MinnesotaSt. Paul, MN

Steven CarlsonChairEnvironmental & NaturalResource Sciences Dept.Humboldt State UniversityArcata, CA

Allison CastellanCoastal Program SpecialistNational Oceanic andAtmosphericAdministrationSilver Spring, MD

Frank Coale**Professor of Soil ScienceUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, MD

Kari CohenNatural ResourceSpecialistUSDA–Natural ResourcesConservation ServiceBeltsville, MD

Ryan ColkerDirector of ProgramsRenewable NaturalResources FoundationBethesda, MD

Brian ConteGIS EducatorLow Country InstituteSpring Island, SC

Jim CummingsEnvironmental ProgramManagerNorth CarolinaDepartment of AgricultureRaleigh, NC

Sheila DavidFellow & Project ManagerH. John Heinz III Centerfor Science, Economicsand the EnvironmentWashington, DC

Margaret DavidsonDirectorNational Ocean ServiceNational Oceanic andAtmosphericAdministrationSilver Spring, MD

Allen DavisDirectorWater ResourcesResearch CenterUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, MD

Robert DayExecutive DirectorRenewable NaturalResources FoundationBethesda, MD

Clancy DempseyField ProgramsCoordinatorGroundwater FoundationLincoln, NE

Judith DenverSupervisory HydrologistU.S. Geological SurveyDover, DE

John DickeyDirectorOutreach andResearch SupportAmericanGeophysical UnionWashington, DC

Susan DiehlDepartment ofForest ProductsMississippi StateUniversityMississippi State, MS


Katherine DowellNonpoint Source ProgramManagerMaryland Department ofNatural ResourcesAnnapolis, MD

Jane EarleWater Pollution BiologistBureau of WatershedManagementPennsylvania Departmentof EnvironmentalProtectionHarrisburg, PA

Leif Eriksen***Nutrient ManagementSpecialistMaryland CooperativeExtensionKeedysville, MD

Michael FinnPresidentCentral Region AmericanSociety forPhotogrammetry & RemoteSensingU.S. Geological SurveyRolla, MO

W.R. FolscheRetiredUSDA-Natural ResourcesConservation ServiceSavoy, TX

Bernie FowlerRetired Maryland StateSenatorCommissioner,Chesapeake BayCommissionPrince Frederick, MD

Ed FreebornNew York StateTechnology EnterpriseCorporationRome, NY

Margot GarciaAssociate ProfessorUrban Studies & PlanningVirginia CommonwealthUniversityRichmond, VA

Parris GlendeningGovernorState of MarylandAnnapolis, MD

Scott GoetzAssociate ResearchScientistUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, MD

Robert GooFederal Lands & ActivitiesTeam LeaderNonpoint Source ControlBranchU.S. EnvironmentalProtection AgencyWashington, DC

Albert GrantVice-ChairmanRNRF Board of DirectorsConsulting EngineerPotomac, MD

Pixie HamiltonHydrologistU.S. Geological SurveyRichmond, VA

Warren HarperDeputy DirectorWatershed and AirManagementUSDA Forest ServiceWashington, DC

Frederick HarrisChiefDivision of InlandFisheriesNorth Carolina WildlifeResources CommissionRaleigh, NC

Robert HoeftProfessor of AgronomyUniversity of IllinoisUrbana, IL

George IcePrincipal ScientistNational Council for Air &Stream ImprovementCorvallis, OR

Eric JanesWatershed Program LeaderU.S. Bureau of LandManagementWashington, DC

Glenn JohnsonGeneral ManagerLower Platte SouthNatural Resources DistrictLincoln, NE

Ron KorcakAssociate DirectorBeltsville AreaUSDA-AgriculturalResearch ServiceBeltsville, MD

Christopher Lant*DirectorEnvironmental Resources& Policy ProgramSouthern IllinoisUniversity-CarbondaleCarbondale, IL

Tom LaughlinDeputy Director,International AffairsNational Oceanic andAtmosphericAdministrationWashington, DC

Patricia LawrenceNational Leader forAnimal HusbandryProgramsUSDA-Natural ResourcesConservation ServiceBeltsville, MD

John Lea-Cox**Assistant ProfessorNursery Research &Extension SpecialistUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, MD

Kara LeBeauRNRF InternJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimore, MD

Julia LentManagerState Government AffairsAmerican Society ofLandscape ArchitectsWashington, DC

Christopher MarshExecutive DirectorSpring Island Trust/LowCountry InstituteSpring Island, SC

Jim McElfishDirectorSustainable Use of LandProgramEnvironmental LawInstituteWashington, DC

Marla McIntosh**Professor of NaturalResource SciencesUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, MD

Tim MillerChiefNational Water QualityAssessment ProgramU.S. Geological SurveyReston, VA

Tom Miller**Regional Water QualitySpecialistMaryland CooperativeExtensionQueenstown, MD


Burrell MontzRNRF Board of DirectorsProfessor of Geography &Environmental StudiesBinghamton UniversityBinghamton, NY

David MoodyChairmanRNRF Board of DirectorsBeaver Wood AssociatesAlstead, NH

Michael MullenDirectorCenter for EnvironmentalResearch & ServicesTroy State UniversityTroy State University, AL

Larry Nielsen*DeanCollege of NaturalResourcesNorth Carolina StateUniversityRaleigh, NC

Richard Nottingham***Agricultural NutrientManagement SpecialistUniversity of MarylandSalisbury, MD

Jim OliverVice President of WaterResourcesAMECAlbuquerque, NM

Cornelia PotterManager for Finance &Policy ReviewMassachusetts WaterResources AuthorityAdvisory BoardBoston, MA

Ghassan RassamRNRF Board of DirectorsExecutive DirectorAmerican FisheriesSocietyBethesda, MD

K.J. ReddyAssistant ProfessorWater QualityUniversity of WyomingLaramie, WY

C.P. Patrick Reid*DirectorSchool of RenewableNatural ResourcesUniversity of ArizonaTucson, AZ

Priscilla ReiningRNRF Board of DirectorsWashington, DC

Andrew Ristvey***Senior Graduate AssistantUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, MD

William RitterBioresources EngineeringDepartmentUniversity of DelawareNewark, DE

Peyton RobertsonCoastal Nonpoint ProgramManagerNational Ocean ServiceNational Oceanic andAtmosphericAdministrationSilver Spring, MD

Howard RosenRNRF Board of DirectorsStaff SpecialistUSDA Forest ServiceWashington, DC

William G. Ross, Jr.SecretaryNorth CarolinaDepartment ofEnvironment and NaturalResourcesRaleigh, NC

Jennifer Salak***Extension AssistantUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, MD

Tom SchuelerExecutive DirectorCenter for WatershedProtectionEllicott City, MD

Robert ShedlockAssociate District Chief ofScience ProgramsU.S. Geological SurveyBaltimore, MD

Paul Shipley***Nutrient ManagementSpecialistUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, MD

Willis SibleyPast-PresidentSociety for AppliedAnthropologyShady Side, MD

Tom Simpson**CoordinatorChesapeake Bay ProgramsUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, MD

Michael SingerChairmanDepartment of Land, Air& Water ResourcesUniversity of California-DavisDavis, CA

Karen SolariWatershed CoordinatorUSDA Forest ServiceWashington, DC

Barry StarkeRNRF Board of DirectorsEarth Design AssociatesCasanova, VA

Patricia Steinhilber**Program CoordinatorAgriculture NutrientManagementUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, MD

Robert M. SummersDirectorMaryland Department ofthe EnvironmentBaltimore, MD

Peggy TadejDirector of EnvironmentProgramsNational Association ofRegional CouncilsWashington, DC

Pete TestAssistant Director ofGovernmental AffairsOregon Farm BureauSalem, OR

Margaret VanderWiltProject LeaderCoastal Services CenterNational Oceanic andAtmosphericAdministrationCharleston, SC

John R. WehleAssistant ExecutiveDirectorSt. Johns River WaterManagement DistrictPalatka, FL

Dov WeitmanChiefNonpoint Source ControlBranchU.S. EnvironmentalProtection AgencyWashington, DC

Lauren WenzelDeputy DirectorEducation, Bay Policy andGrowth ManagementMaryland Department ofNatural ResourcesAnnapolis, MD

* Working Group Chair** Working Group Facilitator

*** Working Group Recorder


Appendix C: Existing Internet Resources

Many outstanding resources exist on all aspects of nonpoint source pollution. Following are a few representative Internetsites. Many more sites, including short descriptions of the content offered, are available at the special congress website:http://www.rnrf.org/2002congress. Additional categories include: Chesapeake Bay, Erosion Control, Forums and Roundtables,Journals and Periodicals, Marine and Ocean Impacts, and Watershed/River Groups.

ASSESMENT, PLANNINGAND MODELINGAgricultural NutrientManagement Programhttp://www.agnr.umd.edu/users/agron/nutrientWatershed Characterizationand Modeling Systemhttp://www.nrac.wvu.edu/wcms/Agricultural Nonpoint SourcePollution Modelhttp://www.sedlab.olemiss.edu/agnps.html

CLEARINGHOUSES ANDINFORMATION CENTERSNational Small FlowsClearinghousehttp://www.nesc.wvu.edu/nsfc/National BMP Case StudyDatabasehttp://www.bmpdatabase.orgPollution Prevention RegionalInformation Centerhttp://p2.ces.fau.edu/index.html

EDUCATIONAL TRAININGAND TOOLSEPA’s Watershed Academyhttp://www.epa.gov/watertrain/National Environmental TrainingCenter for Small Communitieshttp://www.netc.wvu.eduNEMO (Nonpoint Education forMunicipal Officials) Traininghttp://www.nemo.uconn.eduAdopt a Watershedhttp://www.adopt-a-watershed.org/Best Education Practices Projecthttp://www.uwex.edu/erc/bepsummary.html

Community Based EnvironmentalEducation (CBEE)http://www.uwex.edu/erc/pdf/EPA4.pdfEducating Young PeopleAbout Waterhttp://www.uwex.edu/erc/eypaw/planeval.htmlEnvironmental Education Linkhttp://eelink.net/ee-linkintroduction.html

GOVERNMENT PROGRAMSWetlands Reserve Program | NRCShttp://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/wrp/Environmental Protection AgencyNonpoint Source Control Branchhttp://www.epa.gov/owow/npsEPA 2000 National Water QualityInventoryhttp://www.epa.gov/ow/national/Conservation Reserve Programhttp://www.fsa.usda.gov/dafp/cepd/crpinfo.htm

INTERESTED ORGANIZATIONSAND AGENCIESNational Association ofConservation Districtshttp://www.nacdnet.orgWater Environment Federationhttp://www.wef.orgAmerican Public WorksAssociationhttp://www.pubworks.orgSoil and Water ConservationSocietyhttp://www.swcs.org

American Water ResourcesAssociationhttp://www.awra.orgLower Platte South NaturalResources Districthttp://www.lpsnrd.orgUniversities Council onWater Resourceshttp://www.ucowr.siu.edu

MONITORINGCoastal Remote Sensing (CRS)Programhttp://www.csc.noaa.gov/crs/National Water-Quality Assessment(NAWQA) Programhttp://water.usgs.gov/nawqaUSGS Real-Time Datahttp://water.usgs.gov/realtime.htmlUSGS Streamflow Maps and Datahttp://water.usgs.gov/waterwatch/

REPORTS AND STUDIESEnvironmental Law Institute—State Lawshttp://www.eli.org/research/waterpollution.htmThe National Academies—TMDLshttp://www4.nas.edu/news.nsf/isbn/0309075793?OpenDocument

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE &SPECIFIC CONTROLSOnsite Management of ResidentialWastewater (Septic Systems)http://www.soil.ncsu.edu/programs/on-site.htmFarm*A*Systhttp://www.uwex.edu/farmasyst/Home*A*Systhttp://www.uwex.edu/homeasyst/


Purposes

The Renewable Natural Resources Foundation (RNRF)was incorporated in Washington, D.C., in 1972, as a non-profit, public, tax-exempt, operating foundation. It was es-tablished to:

• Advance sciences and public edu-cation in renewable natural re-sources;

• Promote the application of soundscientific practices in managingand conserving renewable naturalresources;

• Foster coordination and coopera-tion among professional, scientificand educational organizations hav-ing leadership responsibilities forrenewable natural resources;and

• Develop a Renewable Natural Re-sources Center.

The foundation represents a unique,united endeavor by outdoor scientiststo cooperate in assessing our renew-able resources requirements and formu-lating public policy alternatives.

Membership

RNRF’s members are professional,scientific and educational organiza-tions interested in sustaining theworld’s renewable natural resources.The foundation is governed by a boardof directors comprised of a represen-tative from each member organization.The directors also may elect “publicinterest members” of the board. Boardmembers are listed on the back coverof the journal. Individuals may becomeAssociates for an annual contributionof $50 or more.

Programs

RNRF conducts national meetings, public-policy roundtables, policy briefings and leadership summits. It also con-ducts an annual awards program to recognize outstanding

personal, project and journalisticachievements. These activities aresupplemented by international outreachactivities and internships. More infor-mation about RNRF’s programs isavailable at www.rnrf.org.

Renewable Resources Journal, firstpublished in 1982, promotes commu-nication among RNRF’s representeddisciplines. The journal is provided tothe governing bodies of RNRF mem-ber organizations, members of the U.S.Congress and committee staffs with ju-risdiction over natural resources, fed-eral agencies, and universities. Tablesof contents of all volumes of the jour-nal are available at RNRF’s web site.

Center Development

The Renewable Natural ResourcesCenter is being developed as an officeand environmental center for RNRF’smembers and organizations with re-lated interests. The Center is locatedon a 35-acre site in Bethesda, Mary-land, where lawns and forested buffersprovide an exceptional work environ-ment. The site is the former family es-tate of Dr. Gilbert H. Grosvenor, of theNational Geographic Society.

The master site plan for the Centercontemplates the construction of ap-proximately 283,000 square feet of of-fice space—including a 16,500 squarefoot conference and common-servicesfacility. The Center currently has ap-proximately 52,500 square feet of of-fice space.

ABOUT RNRF

MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS

American Fisheries Society

American Geophysical Union

American Meteorological Society

American Society forPhotogrammetry

and Remote Sensing

American Society of Agronomy

American Society ofCivil Engineers

American Society ofLandscape Architects

American Water ResourcesAssociation

Association ofAmerican Geographers

The Humane Societyof the United States

Society for Range Management

Society of EnvironmentalToxicology and Chemistry

Society of Wood Scienceand Technology

Soil and WaterConservation Society

Universities Council onWater Resources

The Wildlife Society

32 renewable Resources Journal Winter 2002-2003Printed on Recycled PaperPrinted with Soy Ink

Renewable Resources JournalRenewable Natural Resources Foundation5430 Grosvenor LaneBethesda, Maryland 20814 USA

Non-ProfitOrganizationU.S. Postage

PAIDPermit No. 92Bethesda, MD

RENEWABLE RESOURCESJOURNAL

INDEX—Volume 20

AUTHORSBenedict, Mark A., N3, pg. 12

Brown, Lester R., N2 pg. 10

Carey, Andrew B., N1, pg. 13

Colker, Ryan M., N4

Fazio, James R., N3, pg. 18

Futrell, J. William, N1, pg. 5

Kirschenmann, Frederick, N3, pg. 6

McMahon, Edward T., N3, pg. 12

Teich, Albert H., N2, pg. 6

SUBJECTSA Funny Thing Happened to Me on the

Way to the White House,N2, pg. 6

Agriculture, N1, pg. 13; N2, pg. 14, 16;N3, pg. 6; N4, pg. 18

Air Pollution, N2, pg. 18; N4, pg. 23

Best Management Practices (BMPs), N4,pg. 11, 17, 18

Biodiversity, N1, pg. 13, 28;N2, pg. 17

Chesapeake Bay, N4, pg. 13-16

Coasts, N2, pg. 18

Communication, N3, pg. 20

Conservation Fund, N3, pg. 12

Consumption, N2, pg. 16

Deforestation, N2, pg. 17

Demographics, N1, pg. 7

Eco-Economy, N2, pg. 10

Ecological Restoration, N3, pg. 8

Effective Public Relations for NaturalResource Professionals,N3, pg. 18

Environmental Education, N4, pg. 6, 19,20

Environmental Law, N1, pg. 5

Environmental Revolution,N2, pg. 14

Ethics, N3, pg. 19

Global Environmental Outlook 3: TheImpact of Social, Economic and OtherFactors on EnvironmentalDevelopments, N2, pg. 16

Globalization of Flora: InvitingWorldwide Ecosystem Disaster,N1, pg. 13

Global Trends 2015: A Dialogue aboutthe Future with NongovernmentalExperts, N1, pg. 6

Green Infrastructure: SmartConservation for the 21st Century, N3,pg. 12

Growth Management, N3, pg. 12

Industrial Revolution, N2, pg. 14

Invasive Exotic Species, N1, pg. 14

Land Conservation, N3, pg. 12

Marine Resources, N2, pg. 18

Monitoring, N4, pg. 6, 9, 17

Montreal Protocol, N3, pg. 30

National Intelligence Council,N1, pg. 6

National Water Quality Assessment(NAWQA), N4, pg. 9, 17

Natural Disasters, N2, pg. 19

Nonpoint Source Water Pollution, N4

Partnerships, N4, pg. 20

Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxins(PBTs), N4, pg. 22

Perspective: Now on Endangered List:Environmental Law Itself,N1, pg. 5

Planning, N3, pg. 15

Population, N1, pg. 6; N2, pg. 11

Poverty, N2, pg. 16

President’s Council on SustainableDevelopment, N3, pg. 13

Public Relations, N3, pg. 18

Recycle, N2, pg. 12

Rule of Return, N3, pg. 6-7

The Shape of the Eco-Economy,N2, pg. 10

Science and Policymaking, N2, pg. 6

Smart Growth, N3, pg. 14

Sprawl, N1, pg. 7; N2, pg. 19;N3, pg. 12; N4, pg. 16

Sustainable, N2, pg 10; N3, pg. 6

Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs),N4, pg. 11, 17

United Nations EnvironmentalProgramme, N2, pg. 16;N2, pg. 29

Water, N1, pg. 8; N2, pg. 17; N4

Why American Agriculture Is NotSustainable, N3, pg. 6

Renewable Resources Journalalso is independentely indexed inEnvironmental PeriodicalsBibliography. A complete list oftables of contents can be foundat http://www.rnrf.org.

congress on control of nonpoint source water pollution

Documents