the existing quality of receiving waters. With the 

 passage of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

 Amendments of 1972, however, the control was 

 shifted to effluent standards that were developed for 

 each category of discharger. Under the provisions of 

 this act, the Environmental Protection Agency insti- 

 tuted the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

 System, a permit system that regulated each point 

 discharge in terms of the quantity of each specified 

 pollutant. This shift in strategy and the implementa- 

 tion of the permit system enabled water quality to be 

 improved rather than simply maintained. 



The Clean Water Act of 1977 (P.L. 92-217) has 

 further refined the strategy controlling point source 

 pollution. Municipalities are now required to provide 

 waste treatment at least equivalent to secondary 

 treatment by using the most practicable waste treat- 

 ment technology. Also, industries are required to use 

 the best technology economically available for toxic 

 pollutants and the best conventional pollutants and 

 control technology for conventional pollutants. Per- 

 mits for regulation are still to be issued under the 

 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System to 

 potential polluters, be they individuals, corporations, 

 municipalities, or State or Federal agencies. 



Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Con- 

 trol Act Amendments of 1972 also requires water 

 quality management plans that: (1) Identify areas in 

 need of municipal and industrial waste treatment 

 facilities, (2) establish priorities for constructing such 

 facilities, and (3) identify the nature, scope, and 

 extent of nonpoint sources of water pollution as well 

 as ways to control them. Though the "208" plans have 

 not been completed, the National Pollutant Dis- 

 charge Elimination System has been effective in 

 reducing point source pollution. For example, con- 

 struction of another municipal waste treatment facil- 

 ity may no longer be as beneficial to water quality as 

 implementing practices to control nonpoint source 

 pollution on some stream segments. Although point 

 sources are more easily controlled than nonpoint 

 sources, it is generally more expensive to do so, and 

 control of the last portion of point source pollution 

 may not be cost-effective with respect to the nonpoint 

 source pollution. 



Pollution Control — Nonpoint Source 



It is inevitable that water quality objectives will 

 have an increasingly important role in the manage- 

 ment of forests and rangelands, especially with respect 

 to nonpoint sources of pollution. Through Section 

 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

 Amendments, efforts are being made to identify the 



sources of nonpoint pollution, to determine the extent 

 and impact of these pollutants on water quality, and 

 to prescribe control methods. Nonpoint source pol- 

 lution control is primarily a State responsibility for 

 which the States are preparing "208" plans. Whereas 

 previous nonpoint pollution control efforts were 

 aimed at meeting individual States' water quality 

 standards, the Clean Water Act of 1977 recognized 

 the concept of best management practices as an 

 acceptable approach to controlling this type of pol- 

 lution. The Clean Water Act also recognizes that land 

 management must be practiced if we are to continue 

 to provide an adequate supply of food, fiber, and 

 minerals. 



Best management practices are designed to prevent 

 as much pollution as possible from entering a stream 

 or lake. Nonpoint source pollution is diffuse, so 

 collection and treatment is difficult and expensive, if 

 not impossible. Even where nonpoint source control 

 projects are deemed economically and technically 

 feasible, they may not be warranted on some stream 

 segments because pollution from natural, uncontrol- 

 lable sources will prevent the achievement of some 

 goals stated in the Federal Water Pollution Control 

 Act Amendments. 



Best management practices with respect to forests 

 and rangelands must address the various activities 

 that take place on these lands, including logging, road 

 construction, treatment of vegetation by cutting or 

 burning or by use of pesticides or fertilizers, outdoor 

 recreation, grazing of livestock and wildlife, and off- 

 road vehicle use. If best management practices are to 

 be effective, they must be defined and accepted by 

 Federal and State agencies in cooperation with pri- 

 vate industry, organizations, and individuals. 



However, three important concerns relating to best 

 management practices still must be addressed: (1) The 

 definition of the practices must fit local conditions; 

 (2) standards must be set to judge compliance and to 

 evaluate effectiveness; and (3) it must be determined 

 if best management practices constitute compliance 

 with relevant State water quality standards. A recent 

 survey of streamside management zone statutes and 

 ordinances indicated that "pollutant levels from non- 

 point sources have not been adequately quantified in 

 such a way as to become standards for inclusion in 

 legislation."'^ 



On most public lands, best management practices 

 will be defined by appropriate Federal and State 

 agencies and incorporated into land and resource 



5' U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and the U.S. 

 Environmental Protection Agency. Streamside management zone, 

 statutes and ordinances. Criteria and institutional arrangements 

 serving water quality objectives on State and Private forest lands. 

 U.S. Gov. Printing Office, March 1978. 



315 



