United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office Of Water
(4503F)
EPA-841-S-94-003
September 1994
A Tribal Guide To The
Section 319(h)
Nonpoint Source Grant Program
-------
i (iS;";
jliS'l:''11
EJ3:'i.
•is Hi ijjMKffiTt:
KM:llffii::J^
|f;5*^^t;^|i^fs'?ra'l:?Ki'
,*i)L;j Lv '
:';
i !•*
use natural forms Imch as
flowers in combination with geometric
tise and cremomes.
-------
Acknowledgments
This document was prepared by Pamela Jill Harris of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Nonpoint Source Control Branch, Office of Wetlands, Oceans
and Watersheds. Key contributions were also made by other Nonpoint Source
Control Branch staff as well as EPA Regional Nonpoint Source and Indian
Coordinators.
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction 3
2. Background 5
3. Nonpoint Source Defined 12
4. Major Nonpoint Source Pollution
Categories and Subcategories 13
5. What Should be Included in a Tribal
Nonpoint Source Assessment Report? 14
6. What Should be Included in a Tribal
Nonpoint Source Management Program? 15
7. Procedure for Approval/Disapproval of Tribal NPS Assessment
Reports and Management Programs 16
8. How Can a Tribe Apply for a Section 319(h) grant 17
Appendices
I. EPA's Current 319(h) grant guidance
II. EPA's 1987 Nonpoint Source Program Guidance
III. Bureau of Indian Affairs Listing of Federally Recognized Tribes
IV. Cherokee Band's Assessment Report
V. Cherokee Band's Management Program
VI. Cherokee Band's 319 Grant Application and Workplan for 1993
VII. List of EPA Regional Indian and Nonpoint Source Coordinators
-------
-------
Introduction
The purpose of this Guide is to assist Tribes in developing programs to control
and prevent water quality impairments that result from nonpoint sources of pollution.
Nonpoint source pollution is polluted overland runoff caused by a variety of land use
activities such as agriculture, timber harvesting, construction, abandoned mines, the
improper use of household lawn and garden products and activities more explicitly
defined in part 4 of this Guide. "Point source" or end of the pipe pollution from
sources such as waste sewage treatment plants have long been known contributors
to water quality problems. In most cases federal as well as local action has
successfully controlled these "point source" offenders. However, with nonpoint
source pollution the culprits are not as visible, but the results are the same-polluted
water. Nonpoint source pollution is a leading cause of water quality impairments
nation-wide and poses a significant water quality threat in Indian Country as well.
Funding for the control of nonpoint sources is available under Section 319(h) of the
Clean Water Act which is administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA).
To date, only a few Tribes have applied for section 319(h) grants to address
nonpoint source water quality problems. Therefore, EPA has developed this
document to give an overview of the section 319(h) grant process and assist Tribes
to work with EPA Regions in meeting the basic requirements for grant eligibility.
EPA intends this package to clarify the procedures for obtaining a Section 319(h)
nonpoint source grant.
-------
The following pages briefly summarize these requirements. In addition to this
summary, the Section 319(h) national grant and program guidances are included in
their entirety in the appendices and provide greater detail on the national
requirements for the section 319(h) grant program. Also, EPA Regions issue
Regional nonpoint source grant guidance. Tribes should obtain a copy from their
respective EPA Regional Nonpoint Source Coordinator.
Please note that the EPA Regions have the responsibility for the approval of
assessment reports and management programs both of which are prerequisites for a
319(h) grant. For Section 319(h) grants, the amount of each grant is decided by EPA
Headquarters in consultation with the EPA Regions. Some Tribes have expressed
concern that the nonpoint source Section 319 guidance is geared towards State
programs and does not fit well with Tribal infrastructures. To assist Tribes we have
enclosed an example of an approved assessment report, management program and
grant proposal from the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians.
The Appendix includes a list of EPA Regional Nonpoint Source and Indian
Coordinators. Tribes should work directly with the Coordinators for their particular
EPA Region to develop assessment reports, management plans, and grant
applications.
-------
Background
In 1987 Congress amended the Clean Water Act (CWA) and added Section 319.
Section 319 deals exclusively with the prevention and reduction of nonpoint source
water pollution. Nonpoint source (NPS) pollution is polluted runoff from rain or
snowmelt that finds its way to surface or ground water. Section 319 sets forth
requirements for the preparation by States and Tribes of nonpoint source assessment
reports and management programs to address State and Tribal waters where water
quality standards are impaired or threatened by nonpoint source pollution. Following
EPA approval of these assessment reports and management programs, States and
Tribes are eligible to receive annual Section 319(h) grants to help them implement
their approved management programs. Each year between 1990 and 1994, Congress
has appropriated funds for Section 319(h). The total funding for the program for the
last four years has been about 270 million dollars. In 1994 $80,000,000 were
appropriated. Native American Tribes are eligible for 1/3 of 1% or .33% of these
funds. For 1994 $264,000 was available to Tribes nationally.
-------
The following items are necessary before a Tribe is eligible to receive a Section
319(h) grant:
1) have a tribal eligibility determination (formerly treatment as a State (TAS))
for section 319 of the Clean Water Act;
2) have a completed and EPA-approved assessment report;
3) have an EPA-approved management program for all or some portion of
nonpoint sources causing water quality problems in Tribal waters; and
4) submit to EPA Regional Offices a grant proposal and work plan requesting
financial assistance under Section 319 (h) to fund an activity identified in the
approved nonpoint source management program which addresses a single or
several nonpoint sources.
*To expedite the process, the assessment report, management program report and initial grant proposal
maybe submitted at the same time.
6
-------
Tribal Eligibility Determination
(Formerly Treatment as a State (TAS))
A Tribe must qualify for eligibility to even compete for a section 319(h) grant. An
eligibility determination requires that a Tribe meet four criteria, a) The first criterion is
that the Tribe be federally recognized. A list of federally recognized Tribes is
included in the Appendix under Exhibit 1. If the Tribe is listed, this criterion has been
met. b) The second criterion is that the Tribe demonstrate that it has substantial
governmental duties, c) The third criterion requires that the Tribe demonstrate it
has legal authority or jurisdiction to carry out the purposes of the grant (such as
jurisdiction over a waterbody for which a grant is proposed), d) The fourth criterion is
that the Tribe demonstrates the technical and administrative capability to carry out
the requirements of the grant program.
If the Tribe has already received an eligibility determination for another EPA
program, for each new program for which eligibility is sought, additional information is
only required for Tribal capability and in some cases jurisdiction.
In this case, the Tribe would simply mention in its grant or program authorization that
it has federal recognition as a functional governing body under a previous
determination. This should be accompanied by additional information on Tribal
capacity and, if necessary, Tribal jurisdiction as it relates to the new program.
-------
The treatment as a State (TAS) process has been simplified to reduce the burden
on Tribes and the Agency. The changes to the treatment as a State process are
reflected in the March 23,1994 Federal Register notice. The term treatment as a
State (TAS) is no longer used though much of the documentation requested in the
TAS process must still be provided. One of the major changes to the former TAS
procedure is that instead of there being a separate "treatment as a State" process,
such determinations will be made concurrently with the review of a grant proposal
and States will no longer be asked to comment on Tribal jurisdiction issues. For the
purpose of this document TAS will be referred to as "Tribal eligibility".
8
-------
Assessment/Management Program Reports
An assessment report is a comprehensive description of aj the nonpoint source
water quality problems identified on Indian land. A management program report is a
description of how the Tribe intends to correct and/or prevent the nonpoint source
problems identified in the assessment report. Although the assessment report must
be comprehensive, the management program report may focus on nonpoint sources
identified as a priority for the Tribe. Once the assessment report and at least a
portion of the management program report is approved, a Section 319(h) grant can
be awarded to implement those portions of the management program that have been
approved by the EPA. For example, if a Tribe has two major categories of nonpoint
source pollution problems-agriculture and forestry- but has developed a management
program only for agriculture, then a section 319(h) grant is available only for
prevention and control of nonpoint source pollution caused by agricultural sources.
EPA encourages Tribes that are currently unable to develop nonpoint source
management programs that address all the nonpoint source categories, to focus on
their highest priority nonpoint source problems and develop an approvable nonpoint
source management program to address those problems.
-------
Grant Proposals
Section 319(h) funds can only be used for the implementation of nonpoint source
controls. Therefore, developmental activities such as general surface water
assessment monitoring (monitoring for the effectiveness of a nonpoint source control
technology is acceptable), and the preparation of assessment/management program
reports cannot be funded by a section 319(h) grant. However, funds are available
under both section 104(b)(3) and section 106 of the Clean Water Act for the
preparation of assessment reports; section 106 funds may also be used to prepare a
management program. In 1992 there was additional funding for
assessment/management program report development, however, these funds were
not available in 1993 and there is uncertainty as to whether such funding will be
available in the future. Tribes should check periodically with the Nonpoint Source
Coordinator for their Region to find out if this or other additional funding sources are
available for program development in the future.
10
-------
Tribes are eligible to apply for a Section 319(h) grant after the approval of an
assessment/management program report. The required nonfederal match for a
Section 319(h) grant is 40%, however, if the Tribe can demonstrate financial need
the match can be reduced to 10%. The 319(h) grant must contain a work plan that
identifies specific outputs and milestones and projected dates for the accomplishment
of each task.
To expedite the process, the Tribal eligibility documentation, assessment report,
management program report and initial grant proposal may be submitted at the same
time. EPA Regions are available to provide technical assistance to Tribes.
11
-------
Definition of Nonpoint Source Pollution
For the purpose of implementing the nonpoint source provisions in the CWA,
nonpoint source pollution is defined as pollution caused by rainfall or snow melt
moving over and through the ground and carrying natural and man made pollutants
into surface and ground waters. Generally, the term "nonpoint source" is defined to
mean any source of water pollution that isn't a "point source". Some examples of
point sources include discharges from sewage treatment plants and industrial
facilities. Nonpoint source pollution usually results from activities related to
agriculture, forestry, urban areas, abandoned mines and construction activities which
are not subject to a section 402 storm water permit.
12
-------
Major Nonpoint Source Pollution Categories and Subcategories
Agriculture
Hydrologic/Habitat Modification
Non-irrigated crop production
Irrigated crop production
Specialty crop production
(e.g. truck farming and orchards)
Pasture land
Range land
Feedlots- all types
Aquaculture
Animal holding/management area
Channelization
Dredging
Dam construction
Flow regulation/modification
Bridge construction
Removal of riparian vegetation
Streambankmodification/destabilization
Other
Atmospheric deposition
Waste storage/storage tank leaks
Highway maintenance and runoff
Spills
In-place contaminants
Natural sources
Silviculture
Harvesting, reforestation
residue management
Forest management
Road construction/maintenance
Construction
Highway/road/bridge
Land development
Urban Runoff
Storm sewers (source control)
Combined sewers (source control)
Surface runoff
Resource Extraction /Exploration Development
Surface mining
Subsurface mining
Placer mining
Dredge mining
Petroleum activities
Mill tailings
Mine tailings
Land DisposaKRunoff/Leachate From Permitted Areas)
Sludge
Wastewater
Landfills
Industrial land treatment
On-site wastewater systems(septic tanks, etc.)
Hazardous waste
•Source: U.S. EPA. Guidelines for the Preparation of 1988 State Water Quality Assessment (305(b)
Report). April. 1987, p. 19
13
-------
What Should Be Included in a Nonpoint Source Tribal Assessment
Report?*
The nonpoint source assessment report should include the following four
categories of information:
A) An identification of navigable waters that cannot be expected to attain or maintain
Tribal water quality standards without the control of nonpoint sources of pollution.
B) An identification of the categories and subcategories of nonpoint source pollution
which contribute to the water quality problems for the individual waters identified in
the preceding paragraph (A) (See list of major nonpoint source categories and
subcategories in previous section).
C) A description of the process that will be used to identify the necessary best
management practices needed to control each category and subcategory of nonpoint
source pollution identified in the preceding paragraph (B). Also, a description of the
process that will be used to reduce the level of pollution resulting from these sources.
Include such things as public participation and inter/intragovernmental coordination.
D) A description of any existing Tribal, State, Federal and other programs
(if available) that may be used for controlling pollution from nonpoint sources.
* EPA's December 1987 Nonpoint Source Guidance in the Appendix provides more details regarding the
content of NFS assessment reports.
14
-------
What Should Be Included In a Tribal Nonpolnt Source
Management Program?*
The Tribal NPS Management Program should include the following six categories
of information:
A) A description of the best management practices and measures which will be used
to reduce pollutant loadings resulting from each category and subcategory of
nonpoint source pollution identified in the assessment report. The impact of the
practices on ground-water quality should be taken into account.
B) A description of the programs which will be used to achieve implementation of the
best management practices identified in the preceding paragraph (A). These may
include, as appropriate: nonregulatory or regulatory programs for enforcement,
technical assistance, financial assistance, education, training, technology transfer,
and demonstration projects.
C) A schedule containing annual milestones for the implementation of the best
management practices and programs identified in the preceding paragraphs (A) and
(B).
D) A certification by an independent legal counsel that the laws of the Tribe provide
adequate authority to implement such a management program or, if there is not
adequate authority, a list of additional authorities that may be necessary in order to
implement the management program as well as a schedule and commitment by the
Tribe to seek such additional authorities as expeditiously as practicable.
E) Describe and list any sources of Federal and other assistance/funding (other than
319) which will be available for supporting the implementation of the nonpoint source
pollution control measures identified in the Tribe's NPS management program.
F) Identify any federal activities to be reviewed by Tribes for negative water quality
impacts or inconsistencies with the Tribe's nonpoint pollution control program.
* EPA's December 1987 Nonpoint Source Guidance in the Appendix provides more details regarding the
content of NPS management programs.
15
-------
Procedure for Approval/Disapproval of Tribal NPS Assessment
Reports and Management Programs
Section 319 provides that the Regional Administrator must either approve or
disapprove a Tribe's NPS assessment report and management program no later than
180 days after the date of submittal, and at that time notify the Tribe of any revisions
or modifications necessary to obtain approval. If the Regional Administrator requests
additional information or clarification, the Tribe will have an additional three months to
revise its assessment report and management program, and the Regional
Administrator shall approve or disapprove such revised submittals within three
months of receipt. Importantly, the Regional Administrator must approve the
assessment report in its entirety but has the discretion to approve a portion of a
management program.
The Following Criteria May Result in Disapproval:
The Clean Water Act provides that, after notice and opportunity for public
comment and consultation with appropriate Federal and State agencies and other
interested persons, the Regional Administrator may disapprove a Tribe's assessment
report and/or management program. Criteria for disapproval include:
1) the proposed assessment report and management program or any portion thereof
does not meet the requirements of subsection (a)(1) and (b)(2) of section 319 of the
Clean Water Act (i.e., the elements that must be contained in a Tribal NPS
assessment report and management program as summarized previously);
2) adequate authority does not exist, or adequate resources are not available, to
implement the program or portion of the program;
3) the schedule for implementing the program or portion of the program is not
sufficiently expeditious; or
4) the practices and measures proposed in the program or portion of the program are
not adequate to reduce the level of pollution in navigable waters within Tribal lands
resulting from nonpoint sources and to protect and improve the quality of such
navigable waters.
* EPA's December 1987 Nonpoint Source Guidance in the Appendix provides more details regarding the
approval/disapproval of Tribal assessment/management program reports.
16
-------
How can a Tribe Apply for a 319 Grant?
Once the Tribe has an assessment and management program (or portion of a
management program) that has been approved by EPA, it is ready to apply for a
section 319(h) grant. To apply for a grant, the Tribe must submit a grant proposal and
work plan. The grant proposal should request funding to control a particular nonpoint
source that has been identified in the management program as a source of water
quality degradation. A work program which includes a description of how the
requested funds will be used, and dates for accomplishing specific milestones, must
be submitted with the grant proposal.
The following are some basic components of a work plan:
1) The grant work plan should identify specific tasks and discuss how each task
relates to a specific element or elements of the management program. An
exception to this is that section 319(h) grants may be awarded for ground-water
protection activities though such activities may not be directly addressed in the
management program. However, such activities should be described in a Tribal
ground-water protection strategy which is incorporated into the management program
by reference.
2) Work programs should identify outputs and milestones for each task. Work
programs should specify interim milestones and final dates for the completion of each
task. The milestone dates for specific tasks should be consistent with the milestone
dates identified in the Tribe's management program.
3) Tribes will be required to match the amount of the section 319(h) grant by at least
40% in non-Federal funds. For Tribes that can demonstrate financial need, this
amount can be reduced to 10%. The non-Federal match does not need to be
contributed at the time of the grant award but the funds must be contributed in a
timely manner as needed to meet the schedules established in the work program
milestones.
4) Once a Tribe has been awarded a Section 319(h) grant, EPA requires the Tribe to
annually report on the progress made in meeting nonpoint source management
program milestones, as well as the reductions in nonpoint source pollutant loadings
and improvement in water quality. This is necessary for continued eligibility for a
319(h) grant.
17
-------
-------
GUIDANCE ON THE AWARD AND MANAGEMENT OP
NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS
UNDER SECTION 319(h) OP THE CLEAN WATER ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994 AND FUTURE YEARS
June 11, 1993
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Washington, D.C.
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
Page
I. Introduction 5
A. Background 5
B. Scope of This Guidance 6
C. Objectives for Nonpoint Source Grant Awards 6
II. Funding Process 7
A. Eligibility 7
1. Approved Assessments and Management Programs.... 7
2 . Grants for Implementation Only . . 7
B. General Approach to Awarding Funds 9
C. Expediting Funding Process 10
D. Funding Process 11
III. National Priorities for Awarding Section 319(h)
Grants 14
A. Priority Nonpoint Source Control Activities 14
B. Balanced State Programs 16
C. Effectiveness of State's Performance to Date 17
D. Interagency Coordination 17
IV. Guidance for Preparing Work Programs 18
A. Watershed Projects 18
1. Ranking Priority Waters 18
2 . Objectives for Watershed Projects 20
3. Minimum Requirements for All Watershed
Pro j ects 21
-------
Page
4. Additional Minimum Requirements for
Projects Funding Cost Sharing to
Individuals 23
5. Watershed Resource Restoration Element .24
B. Monitoring .24
1. Monitoring in All Watershed Projects 25
2. Regional Set-aside for a National
Evaluation 25
C. Urban Storm Water Runoff 26
D. Ground-Water Element. 28
1. Priorities for the Ground-Water Element 28
2. Consistency with State Ground-Water Programs...29
E. Contaminated Sediments 30
F. Pollution Prevention 30
V. Grants Management Criteria for Awarding
Section 319 (h) Grants 31
A. 319(h) Grants are to be Awarded as
Continuing Environmental Program Grants 31
B. The Work Program Must Demonstrate that Each
Funded Work Task will Implement Specific
Activities Identified in the Approved
Management Program 32
C. The Work Program Must Specify Outputs and
Milestones 33
D. The Non-Federal Share Must Be At Least 40
Percent „ 33
E. Special Conditions to be Included in All Grants 34
1. Reporting. 34
2. Maintenance of Effort 38
3. Limitation on Administrative Costs 39
4. Satisfactory Progress 39
VI. Management and Oversight of Section 319(h) Grants 39
3
-------
Page
VII. Grants to Indian Tribes 41
Attachments
Attachment A: Factors in Planning Target Formula 43
Attachment B: Schedule for Issuance of Section
319 (h) Grants 45
Attachment C: Selected References 46
Attachment D: Generic Grant Condition Establishing
State Reporting Requirements 48
Attachment E: Nationally Mandated Data Elements
Under Section 319 Grants Reporting
and Tracking System (CRTS) 49
Attachment F: Applying the Definition of
Pollution Prevention to the
Nonpoint Source Program 50
Attachment G: Agencywide Guidance on
Pollution Prevention -51
Attachment H: Program Plan for the Section
319 National Monitoring Program. 56
-------
GUIDANCE ON THE AWARD AND MANAGEMENT OF NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM
IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS UNDER SECTION 319(h) OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994 AND FPTURE YEARS
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background
Congress enacted section 319 of the Clean Water Act in 1987,
establishing a national program to control nonpoint sources of
water pollution. Nonpoint source pollution is caused by rainfall
or snow melt moving over and through the ground and carrying
natural and manmade pollutants into lakes, rivers, streams,
wetlands, estuaries, other coastal waters, and ground water.
Atmospheric deposition and hydrologic modification are also sources
of nonpoint pollution. Under section 319, States address nonpoint
pollution by developing nonpoint source assessment reports;
adopting management programs to control nonpoint source pollution;
and implementing the management programs. Section 319(h) provides
for EPA's award of grants to States to assist them in implementing
those management programs or portions of management programs that
have been approved by EPA.
EPA issued guidance in December 1987 entitled Nonpoint Source
Guidance which established the process for State submissions and
EPA approval of State nonpoint source assessment reports and
management programs. All States now have EPA-approved assessment
reports. In addition, as of April, 1993, EPA has fully approved 51
State (including Territories) management programs and has approved
portions of 6 State management programs (two Indian Tribes have
approved assessment reports and management programs).
Congress appropriated the first section 319 grant funds in
Fiscal Year (FY) 1990. On December 1 and 15, 1989, EPA issued
interim guidance for awarding FY 1990 grant funds to the States,
including an interim planning target formula based on nonpoint
source control needs. This guidance supplemented the December 1987
Nonpoint Source Guidance.
Because of the extremely tight deadlines imposed by the
Conference Report to issue the FY 1990 grants, EPA developed the FY
1990 interim planning target formula and guidance with no oppor-
tunity for public input. To provide an opportunity for inter-
ested parties to comment on the interim guidance, planning target
formula, and other issues of concern, EPA issued a Federal Register
notice on August 28, 1990 (55 FR at 35248) to solicit comments on
final nonpoint source grants guidance. EPA subsequently issued
final grant guidance on February 15, 1991, which reflected EPA's
consideration of public comments as well as EPA's experience in
administering the section 319(h) grant program to date. The 1991
-------
guidance served as t.he main national guidance for the award of
section 319(h) grants in FY 1991 - 1993.
This revised section 319(h) grant guidance serves as an update
to the 1991 grant guidance and will supersede the 1991 guidance
starting in the FY 1994 grant cycle. This grant guidance has been
revised to include an expedited schedule for awarding section
319(h) grants, improvements to the process for awarding such
grants, and clarifies reporting and other requirements.
B. Scope of This Guidance
This guidance will serve as the final guidance for allocating
and managing section 319 grants for FY 1994 and future years. In
addition to this guidance, EPA will develop and annually distribute
planning targets for States' base program awards and Regional lump
sums for competitive awards to States, based on the factors and
weights established in Attachment A and on Congressional
appropriations. EPA will also publish supplemental annual guidance
when appropriate. In addition, the Regions may provide
supplemental Regional guidance to advise States on Regional
priorities.
This guidance sets forth EPA's policy for awarding all section
319 grants under section 319(h), in lieu of awarding separate
grants under section 3l9(i). EPA believes this approach will
encourage integration of ground-water activities with overall State
nonpoint source control programs.
C. Objectives for Nonpoint Source Grant Awards
In section 319(h) Congress directed EPA to "make grants,
subject to.such terms and conditions as the Administrator considers
appropriate." Throughout this guidance, we emphasize that, at all
steps of the funding and oversight process, EPA must ensure that
the funds will be directed towards activities that result in
demonstrated progress in achieving Congress1 goal of controlling
and abating nonpoint source pollution. Planning targets are not to
be regarded as entitlements. Therefore, while planning targets are
necessary beginning points for developing grant work programs,
final grant awards are to be based on priorities, criteria, and
procedures that assure that the funds will be used effectively to
achieve the objectives of the nonpoint source control program.
Program objectives, and the priorities, criteria, and procedures to
achieve those objectives are discussed below.
EPA has four broad objectives in awarding section 319
nonpoint source grants. These are to:
1. Support State activities for abating or preventing
nonpoint source pollution that have the greatest
likelihood of producing early, demonstrable water quality
-------
results, and reducing ecological and health risks in areas
of greatest concern.
2. Award and manage nonpoint source grants in a manner that
T encourages and rewards effective performance by the
States.
3. Institutionalize State and local nonpoint source programs.
4. Encourage strong relationships among Federal, State and
local nonpoint source and nonpoint source-related programs
and activities to create long-term program effectiveness.
II. FUNDING PROCESS
A. Eligibility
1. Approved Assessments and Management Programs
Section 319(h) funds are awarded for the purpose of
implementing approved State nonpoint source management programs.
Therefore, the Act requires that a State must have received EPA
approval of its nonpoint source assessment report and management
program in order to be eligible for section 319(h) funds. All
States are now eligible for section 319(h) grants to implement
their approved programs or portions thereof. However, States.are
not eligible for grants to implement non-approved portions of State
management programs.
Regions should encourage States that do not have fully
approved nonpoint source management programs to continue to expand
their management programs to address all major pollution sources
identified in their nonpoint source assessments. Regions should
also encourage States to modify and update fully approved programs
or expand approved portions of programs, as appropriate, to assure
that the best possible work programs may be developed and
considered for funding. Any changes to State management programs
must be submitted to EPA Regions for approval. The
comprehensiveness and overall quality of a State's management
program is an appropriate factor for Regional consideration in
making State grant award decisions.
2. Grants for Implementation Only
As noted above, section 319(h)(1) authorizes grants only for
the purpose of assisting States in implementing approved nonpoint
source management programs. Therefore, nonpoint source program
development activities are generally not eligible for funding under
section 319(h), with the exception that a portion of the grants may
be used for ground-water assessment activities, pursuant to section
319(h)
-------
As section 319(h) funds are to be used for assisting States
in implementing approved nonpoint source management programs, such
funds may not be used for assisting States in updating or revising
State nonpoint source management programs. Section 604(b) and
section 106 Clean Water Act funds may be used by States to update
nonpoint source management programs. Similarly, section 319(h)
funds may not be used to develop coastal nonpoint pollution control
programs. Section 319(h) funds may, however, be used to implement
portions of approved coastal nonpoint pollution control programs.
In the course of administering the section 319 program over
the past several years, questions have been raised as to what are
considered "implementation" as opposed to "development" activities.
Following is some further clarification of the meaning of these
terms in the context of section 319:
Implementation -
Section 319(h)(l) authorizes grants only for the purpose of
assisting States in implementing approved nonpoint source
management programs. The act of implementing means carrying out an
approved management program or portion of such program. Eligible
types of program implementation activities listed in section
319(b)(2)(B) include: nonregulatory or regulatory programs for
enforcement, technical assistance, financial assistance, education,
training, technology transfer, and demonstration-projects.
Monitoring to assess the success of specific nonpoint source
implementation projects is considered an eligible implementation
activity; general nonpoint source surface water assessment
activities are not eligible.
Establishment of total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) under
section 303(d) are normally considered "development" activities,
and thus, are usually not eligible for funding under section
319 (h) . However, in certain high priority watersheds establishment
of a TMDL may be a necessary and integral part of implementation of
best management practices in a specific nonpoint source control
project. In these limited number of cases, certain TMDL activities
may be funded with section 319(h) funds if they are related to the
implementation of a comprehensive watershed project, including
implementation of appropriate nonpoint source activities designed
to achieve measurable water quality improvements. In these limited
number of cases, section 319(h) funds may be used to support the
allocation of loads for a TMDL and to analyze the effectiveness of
control options. However, development of predictive models and
related calibration surveys are considered development activities
and thus are not eligible for funding under section 319(h).
A number of ground-water activities are not considered
implementation activities (e.g., general assessment and research
8
-------
activities) but are eligible activities for funding under 319(h),
pursuant to section 319(h)(5)(D).
Development - .
«=<,•* i •
Development means those functions necessary to produce and revise
nonpoint source assessment reports, management programs, and
coastal nonpoint pollution control programs. Once these documents
are approved, development activities include activities to update
and improve these documents. Development activities are also
considered other activities that are not contained in the
management program such as general monitoring activities to fill
gaps in nonpoint source assessments, completion of management
programs for categories and sub-categories of partially-approved
management programs, updates of milestones in management programs,
and similar tasks.
B. General Approach to Awarding Funds
EPA's general approach to awarding section 319 funds in each
fiscal year is described below:
o EPA first subtracts required set-asides from the section
319 Congressional appropriation. These include set-asides
for EPA administration and personnel (section 319(n)),
Indian Tribes (section 518(f)), and any additional set-
asides directed by Congress.
o Remaining funds are divided into two equal portions. The
first portion is used for States' base programs. This
portion is divided into a base program planning target for
each State. The factors used to derive these targets are
set forth in Attachment A.
o The second portion of the remaining grant funds is awarded
by Regions to States on a competitive basis and in
accordance with priorities specified by the Regions. Each
Region will receive a lump sum for competitive awards that
is equal to the sum of its States' base program planning
targets.
o Consistent with previous guidance, EPA will continue to
award all authorized section 319 funds under section
319(h) and will not award separate grants under section
319(i) ("Grants for Protecting Groundwater Quality").
However, in recognition of the importance of nonpoint
source impacts on ground water, at least 10 percent of
each States overall work program should be devoted to
addressing priority ground-water nonpoint source
activities described in section IV, D.
-------
c.
o In addition, at least 10 percent of each States overall
work program should be devoted to watershed resource
restoration activities (see section IV, A for more details
regarding the Watershed Resource Restoration Element).
Expediting Funding Process
EPA Regions are encouraged to work closely with their States
to develop a more expedited and streamlined process for the award
of section 319(h) grants. The majority of section 319(h) grants
awarded in the first several years of the program were awarded
relatively late' in the fiscal year in which the funds were
appropriated. This guidance has been revised to put the section
319(h) program on a substantially earlier schedule than that
established in the 1991 grant guidance, and on a schedule that is
compatible with other CWA grant programs. The revised funding
process is outlined in the next section on Funding Process and the
revised schedule is provided in Attachment B.
A primary advantage of expediting the section 319(h) grant
process is the ability to bring the section 319 grants into a cycle
that is compatible with the planning for funding other water
programs including sections 106, 604(b), 104(b), and 320 of the
CWA. These CWA programs initiate planning in the spring based on
the President's budget request for the next fiscal year. Several
other advantages for expediting the 319(h) grarrt award schedule
include: ability to use grant funds in the same year in which they
were appropriated; avoiding missing an entire construction season
and/or cropping season; maintaining momentum and enthusiasm for
implementation projects at the local level; and allowing monitoring
projects to get underway earlier. While there are a number of
advantages to an expedited schedule, it is recognized that moving
the grant process schedule up may be difficult for a number of
Regions and States, and thus a two-year transition is established
to ease this process.
In addition to the revised funding process outlined below, EPA
Regions are urged to consider the following menu of management
options for expediting and streamlining the process:
1. EPA Regions should meet with States early in the process
to discuss Regional guidance and priorities.
2. EPA Regions should provide work plan formats in Regional
guidance so States understand EPA's expectations.
3. EPA Regions should consider using a work plan development
process that includes an option for pre-proposals of
limited page length as they have helped streamline the
process in several Regions.
10
-------
4. EPA Regions should encourage States to rank competitive
activities submitted to EPA in initial work plans.
5. EPA Regions should specify the project selection criteria
that the Region will be using.
6. EPA Regional Nonpoint Source Program offices should
coordinate with their EPA Regional Grants Management
offices early in the process to facilitate administrative
review of 319(h) grants.
D. Funding Process
Step 1: EPA Issues National Guidance Including States' Base Program
Planning Targets and Regional Competitive Lump Sums
By April 1 of each year, EPA Headquarters will issue updated
national guidance, as necessary, as well as planning targets for
the next fiscal year (for FY 1994, EPA will issue the revised
national guidance and planning targets by June 15, 1993). The
planning targets will be based on the President's request. Regions
and States should be aware, however, that these planning targets
may need to be adjusted based on the final budget appropriation
received in a given fiscal year.
Step 2; EPA Regions Meet with States to Discuss Regional Guidance
and Priorities, and EPA Regions Issue Supplemental Guidance
EPA Regions have the discretion to issue supplemental Regional
319(h) grant guidance to establish Regional priorities and
procedures, that are consistent with those set forth in this
national guidance. If EPA Regions update their Regional guidance,
they are strongly encouraged to meet with their States to develop
Regional guidance and priorities each year in April and May (in FY
1994 these meetings should occur in July). EPA Regions should
issue Regional 319 (h) grant guidance by June 1 (in FY 1994, the
date is August 1, 1993).
Regional guidance must be consistent with national priorities
for the section 319 grants program as described in section III
below. For example, a Region may choose to devote a specified
share (e.g., 50 percent) of the competitive funds to address a top
priority Region-wide problem identified in State assessment reports
and management programs (e.g., animal waste, fertilizer runoff or
urban runoff); innovative or high-priority solutions (e.g.,
sustainable agriculture, nutrient management, or prevention of
urban runoff); institution-building approaches (e.g., cooperative
work between the State and USDA or other Federal or State
agencies); or comprehensive watershed-based approaches. Regions
should give special consideration to leading sources of ecological
and human health risks in establishing specific Regional
priorities.
11
-------
Step 3: States Submit. Draft. Work Programs
By August 1 of each year, each State will submit a draft
grant application for the base program planning target amount (in
FY 1994 the deadline is November 1, 1993) . The State may also
apply for a portion of the Regional competitive grant amount by
submitting, as part of its application, a proposal for funding
additional nonpoint source projects and activities. Each task
identified for the competitive funds should contain a separate
budget. Also, as part of the application, each State should submit
a brief (3-4 paragraph) introductory narrative explaining the
State's strategy for using section 319 funds in the current fiscal
year.
Regions should work closely with their States at this stage to
promote the development and submission of high-quality, goal-
oriented work programs consistent with the national objectives and
priorities established by this guidance. Regions should emphasize
that the quality and effectiveness of these work programs will play
a significant role in the Region's determination of final awards.
The base program planning targets for each State are starting
points for planning purposes. Regions may vary the final base
program grant amount to assure that all allocated funds will comply
with the goals and requirements of section 319 and this guidance.
Regions should work closely with their States to help ensure that
the States' work program will merit full funding of the base
program.
The base and competitive portions of grant proposals may
include both statewide as well as watershed/aquifer (project)
specific activities. (However, see section III B, on Balanced State
Programs for more detailed discussion of need for balanced State
nonpoint source programs).
Step 4: Regional Review
By October 1, Regions will review each State's application
and provide a written reply (for FY 1994 grants, the deadline is
January 1, 1994).
Regional responses should include written comments on the
State's work plan and should indicate the total dollar amount which
the Region plans to award to the State in the current grant year.
The amount awarded should be based on the quality of the State's
current draft work program and its conformance with the objectives,
priorities, and criteria set forth in this guidance and any
Regional guidance, and take into consideration the effectiveness of
the State's performance in the previous fiscal year. The Region's
response should clearly indicate which activities are to be funded
from the initial list submitted by the State and the funding level
12
-------
for each. In order to reach agreement on work activities and
detailed funding levels, Regions and States should meet or conduct
telephone conversations as necessary to resolve these issues.
Ttie Region's response should also identify the deadline for
the State to submit a final work program (see Step 5 below).
Step 5; Submission of Final Work Program
Based on the Region's written response, States should submit
final work programs by December 1 (in FY 1994, the date is March 1,
1994). The work programs must respond to the Region's comments and
be of sufficiently high quality to merit funding, both with respect
to base program funding and competitive funding.
It is particularly important during this period to formalize
quantified outputs, milestones, and reporting requirements (see
section V below). Regions should not award any funds to a State if
they cannot be assured that the State's funded activities will
achieve specific outputs within specified time periods and that
achievement of those outputs can be adequately tracked and assessed
by the Region.
Step 6: Regions Award Grants
If the State's final application is of high quality, fully
reflects the negotiated agreement between the State and the Region,
and meets the requirements discussed in sections IV and V of this
guidance, the Region should approve the grant award, including the
base grant amount plus the Regional competitive portion. The
Region must make all grant awards as early as possible in the
fiscal year but no later than February 1 (for FY 1994, the date is
May 1, 1994) . Any funds not awarded by June 1 must be returned to
Headquarters for reallocation (for FY 1994, the date is August 1,
1994) .
Step 7; States Obligate Funds
States are encouraged to obligate the awarded funds as
expeditiously as possible and to conduct funded activities pursuant
to the schedules in work programs approved by EPA. EPA has
interpreted section 319(h)(6) to provide that section 319(h) funds
granted to a State shall remain available for obligation by the
State for one year from the grant award. For example, grant funds
awarded to a State on May 1, 1994 remain available for obligation
until May 1, 1995. The amount of any such funds that cannot be
obligated by one year from the grant award shall be available to
EPA for granting to other States.
To assure that States commit to expend awarded funds in a
timely manner and to ensure that EPA has adequate time to
reallocate grant funds, if necessary, Regions should include
13
-------
appropriate special conditions in the grant awards. Specifically,
Regions should include grant condition language calling for the
grant recipient to award all proposed contracts and interagency
agreements within one year after the grant award.
The term "obligate" does not mean to "expend." It means that
the State must commit the section 319(h) funds to be expended.
Following is a definition of "obligation (by a recipient)" in EPA's
Assistance Administration Manual:
The amount of funds which a recipient legally earmarks for
expenditure through orders placed, payrolls, subagreements
awarded, travel authorizations, and other transactions.
III. NATIONAL PRIORITIES FOR AWARDING SECTION 319(h) GRANTS
Set forth below are the national priorities for setting
preliminary and final section 319(h) grant award amounts and
awarding section 319(h) grants. These priorities are designed to
ensure that the national section 319(h) grants program achieves the
broad objectives stated above.
A. Priority Nonpoint Source Control Activities
Section 319 funds should continue to be focused upon those
particular nonpoint source control activities that are of highest
priority. Section 319(h)(5) of the Clean Water Act establishes
four categories that the Administrator may give priority to in
making grants, namely, those activities which:
o Control particularly difficult or seriovis nonpoint source
problems, including, but not limited to, problems
resulting from mining activities;
o Implement innovative methods or practices for controlling
nonpoint sources of pollution, including regulatory (e.g.,
enforcement) programs where EPA deems appropriate;
o Control interstate nonpoint source pollution problems; or
o Carry out ground-water quality protection activities which
EPA determines are part of a comprehensive nonpoint source
pollution control program, including research, planning,
ground-water assessments, demonstration programs, enforce-
ment, technical assistance, education, and training
programs to protect ground water from nonpoint sources of
pollution.
14
-------
Additional priorities established by EPA include:
o Address nationally significant, high-risk nonpoint source
problems and focus implementation activities in priority
watershed or ground-water areas to reduce ecological and
human health risks.
o Comprehensively integrate existing programs to control
nonpoint source pollution.
Integrate with existing State planning or management
programs such as State Wetland Conservation Plans,
Comprehensive State Ground-Water Protection Programs,
Regional Near-Coastal Water Strategies, State Clean
Lakes Programs, and State Watershed Protection
Programs.
Implement nonpoint source components of National
Estuary Program Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plans.
- Address surface/ground-water (cross-media) issues.
Integrate Federal, State and local programs including
multi-jurisdictional efforts such as USDA's Water
Quality Initiative, TVA's Land and Water 201 project,
and the like.
o Provide for monitoring and evaluation of program
effectiveness, including adoption of rigorous water
quality monitoring protocols (see Section IV, B
below).
o Demonstrate a long-term commitment to building the
institutions necessary for effective nonpoint source
management and to continuing such institutions beyond
the authorization period.
o Emphasize effective pollution prevention mechanisms to
control nonpoint source pollution at the source.
o Protect particularly sensitive and ecologically signifi-
cant waters, such as wetlands, estuaries and other coastal
waters, wild and scenic rivers, and exceptional fisheries.
o Promote comprehensive watershed management, including
the establishment and maintenance of protective corri-
dors such as greenways, filter strips and wetlands along
streams, lakes, and estuaries and the use of conservation
easements and other land conservancy measures.
15
-------
o Provide for the use of antidegradation provisions and
other measures necessary to assure that population growth,
new development, and new or expanded economic activity do
not result in impairment of high quality waters and waters
currently meeting water quality standards.
o Address urban storm water that is not subject to NPDES
permit requirements (see Section IV, C below).
o Promote implementation of coastal nonpoint source
management measures developed pursuant to section 6217(g)
of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990
and promote demonstration of innovative management
measures.
Changes in environmental conditions may require modifications
of these priorities in the future. EPA will, however, attempt to
retain this broad-based list in order to provide States with
consistency and allow them to better respond to national priorities
in preparing their work plans.
B. Balanced State Programs
EPA will place priority on section 319(h) awards which help
States achieve overall, balanced State nonpoint source management
programs. Thus, section 319(h) grant funds should be directed to
balanced State work programs. They should provide, as appropriate
in a given State, for both: 1) the improvement of particular
waterbodies1 quality through the performance of watershed projects
(or through focusing efforts in specific wellhead protection areas
and other ground-water recharge areas) and 2) the institutionali-
zation of long-term Statewide nonpoint source programs that
encompass a broad range of activities (including non-regulatory and
regulatory programs for enforcement, monitoring, technical
assistance, education, training, technology transfer, and watershed
project management and oversight). This balance can be achieved if
Regions and States work together to fund high priority management
program activities that address both of these aspects of nonpoint
source control, as appropriate in a given State.
For example, in States with numerous ongoing statewide
nonpoint source implementation activities, it may be appropriate
to focus a large percentage of the section 319(h) funds on
supporting specific watershed project activities. In contrast, a
State with a substantial State-funded cost-share program may need
section 319 funding to support State-wide implementation
activities. These decisions, however, should be made by each State
in consultation with the appropriate EPA Regional nonpoint source
staff with the objective being the development of overall, balanced
State programs to control and prevent nonpoint source pollution.
16
-------
To promote the institutionalization of State's nonpoint
source programs, consistent with financial support for nonpoint
source abatement activities provided by section 319 funds and other
Federal, State and local sources, EPA Regions should encourage
States to identify a number of positions as nonpoint source
positions and to group them as a unit. This approach would
reinforce the increasing priority given to abatement of nonpoint
source pollution and would affirm the unique skills necessary for
functions such as nonpoint source monitoring, planning and
technical assistance.
In the course of implementing section 319, questions have been
raised as to what "institutionalization" means. In the context of
implementing section 319, "institutionalization" means to build
long-term State and local capacity to implement nonpoint source
programs, regardless of the availability of Federal funding.
C. Effectiveness of State's Performance to Date
A major factor in determining whether a State will use grant
funds effectively to address nonpoint source pollution is its
effectiveness in addressing such pollution in the past. Regions
should give funding priority to States that have demonstrated
through past performance the willingness and ability to plan and
implement nonpoint source control activities. Such performance
includes activities to date in developing and implementing State
nonpoint source assessments and management programs, and section
319 grant work programs. These should be evaluated in terms of
quality, timeliness, completeness, breadth and depth. Equally
important. Regions should consider States' success to date in
establishing nonpoint source controls and installing best
management practices through regulatory or non-regulatory means;
providing research, monitoring, training, education and technical
assistance; and conducting other activities that provide real
movement towards achieving water quality objectives through
nonpoint source control.
D. Interaqency Coordination
Interagency coordination is critical to the successful
implementation of section 319 nonpoint source control programs at
statewide and local levels. However, such coordination may be
difficult since nonpoint source pollution prevention and control
touches on many sectors of the national economy and involves a
variety of Federal, State, and local agencies and interest groups.
Congress recognized the importance of this coordination in section
319(a)(l)(C) by requiring States to describe a process for
intergovernmental coordination and public participation in
identifying best management practices (BMPs) and measures to
control nonpoint source pollution. EPA encourages States to use
the process described in the State nonpoint source assessments or
management programs, or to modify the process to ensure interagency
17
-------
coordination and public participation in implementing nonpoint
source management programs.
EPA also strongly encourages the lead State nonpoint source
agency to coordinate the development of its section 319 work
program with the appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies
responsible for ground-water protection, coastal/estuarine
programs, wetlands management, storm water management, agriculture,
forestry and other related nonpoint source programs. Regions may
consider the extent of interagency coordination in assessing the
adequacy of proposed State -grant work programs. Similarly,
Regional nonpoint source staff should involve appropriate Regional
staff (e.g., ground-water staff) and other agencies, as appro-
priate, early in the review process for section 319 grants.
A central purpose of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization
Amendments of 1990 (CZARA) is to strengthen the links between State
coastal zone management programs and water quality programs. Lead
State nonpoint source agencies in the 29 coastal States will thus
need to give increased emphasis to working with their State coastal
zone management agencies to develop and implement coastal nonpoint
source programs, pursuant to CZARA. As indicated above, section
319(h) funds may be used to implement portions of approved coastal
nonpoint pollution control programs.
IV. GUIDANCE FOR PREPARING WORK PROGRAMS
A. Watershed Projects
Section 319(b)(4) requires that States implement their
nonpoint source management programs to the maximum extent
practicable on a watershed-by-watershed basis. (The term
"watershed," as used throughout this section and in other parts of
the guidance, includes ground-water areas such as wellhead
protection areas and other ground-water resource areas as well as
surface waterbodies.) This requirement emphasizes that section 319
projects are intended to prevent or solve specific nonpoint source-
related water quality problems. As emphasized in Section III, C,
on Balanced State Programs, both statewide activities and watershed
projects are needed for effective nonpoint source management
programs.
1. Ranking Priority Waters
With limited resources, States must necessarily focus their
initial watershed protection and restoration efforts on a limited
number of high priority surface and ground-waters. The December
1987 Nonpoint Source Guidance encouraged States to make the most
efficient use of available resources by identifying the sequence
for protecting their waters based on a comparative evaluation of
the State's waters. A major rationale for targeting waters is that
it provides the greatest opportunity for achieving visible water
18
-------
quality improvements in the short run and helps build public
support for the program.
State prioritization of waters not only assists the water
quality" agencies in focusing their own watershed protection
activities, but provides guidance for other State and Federal
agencies. For example, the selected priorities can be used to
guide: USDA's water quality programs which provide assistance to
farmers; Conservation Reserve set-asides; U.S. Forest Service
Watershed Improvement Programs; and other programs to protect water
quality from nonpoint source pollution. As another important
example, Congress has specifically cited waters identified by
States under section 319 and wellhead protection areas under State
wellhead protection programs as a top priority for the Water
Quality Incentives Program established in the Food Security Act of
1990. In addition, CZARA requires the 29 coastal States to
identify coastal waters not meeting water quality standards.
Although some States have adopted systems to rank waters for
their nonpoint source programs, some States may still not have
developed such systems or may need to update them. Development of
priority setting processes and the resultant list of priority
waters is a high priority for the national nonpoint source program.
Thus, for the reasons cited above, States should establish
priorities for surface and ground waters impaired or threatened by
nonpoint source pollution. These priorities may be established
through a revision of the approved nonpoint source assessment or
management programs, using a process that provides for both
interagency coordination and public participation, and such
revisions would be subject to approval by EPA Regions. Regardless
of what process the State uses to establish priorities, it is
critical that the process allows for interagency coordination and
public participation. States without priority rankings should
develop them. EPA Regions should give funding priority to
watershed projects that are identified through State priority
ranking systems.
EPA recognizes that State processes to identify priority
water resources need to be dynamic and flexible to account for new
information, changing levels of interest and support in a given
area of the State, new Federal/State/local program initiatives, and
other factors. In addition, it may not always be reasonable to
rank all waters identified in nonpoint source assessments in
numerical order. Therefore, as an alternative to numerical
rankings, States may group waterbodies in categories, i.e., high,
medium, low.
EPA is not prescribing a ranking or targeting procedure that
States must follow. The guiding principle in evaluating a State's
waters is to maximize environmental benefits by devoting resources
and efforts to water resources in a priority order that recognizes
the values of the waterbody or aquifer in question, the benefits
19
-------
to be realized from various control actions, and the controll-
ability of the problem(s) (including evidence of local public
interest and support). Criteria to consider in evaluating
watersheds include:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
human health and ecological risk;
vulnerability of ground water or surface water to
additional environmental degradation;
likelihood of achieving demonstrable environmental
results;
implementability;
extent of alliances with other Federal agencies and States
to coordinate resources and actions;
value of the watershed or ground-water area to the public;
resource needs; and
use of existing and or development of new assessment
information.
Rankings for surface water should be as consistent as
possible with other priority rankings established by the States
such as under section 303(d), which requires priority rankings for
waters identified as being unable to achieve water quality
standards. In addition, priority rankings should be as consistent
as possible with those prepared for other programs such as the
Clean Lakes Program (section 314), the National Estuary Program
(section 320), the Near Coastal Waters Program , and section
304(1), and should be consistent with information in States'
section 305(b) reports.
Ground-water priorities should be consistent with State
Comprehensive Ground-water Programs and State ground-water
classifications. EPA recognizes that unique priority setting
systems are appropriate for ground water. State priority ground-
water areas may not be coterminous with priority watersheds. For
example, wellhead protection areas - located near or in population
centers which depend on ground water for drinking water supplies -
may be outside priority surface watershed areas, or may be highly
focused areas requiring unique targeting of program activities.
It may be appropriate for States to include ground-water
assessments as a portion of their section 319 work programs if such
activities are necessary for establishing priorities for ground-
water protection activities (see section IV, D below). State work
programs should describe how such activities will be used for
targeting future implementation of nonpoint source pollution
controls designed to protect priority ground water and how such
activities are coordinated with existing State ground-water
protection efforts.
More detailed information on priority setting is also
contained in pp. 11 and 12 of the December 1987 Nonpoint Source
Guidance; Setting Priorities; The Kev to Nonpoint Source Control
20
-------
(EPA, 1987) ; Selecting Priority Nonpoint Source Projects; You
Better Shop Around (EPA, 1989) ; and Geographic Targeting; Selected
State Examples (EPA, 1993) (see detailed citations for these
publications in Attachment C).
2. Objectives for Watershed Projects
Watershed projects should be comprehensive and adequately
address all of the major sources of nonpoint source pollution
affecting water quality in the watershed, and should include
habitat protection and restoration activities for multiple
benefits. The primary objective should be to reduce the pollutant
load entering a water resource from the nonpoint sources so that
beneficial uses are restored and/or State water quality standards
can be attained or maintained. State antidegradation policies may
also be used to focus pollution prevention projects. To accomplish
these objectives, all critical areas needing treatment should be
identified for treatment and watersheds should be small enough so
that critical areas are a manageable size. States may choose, for
example, to focus implementation on a sub-drainage area within a
watershed that contributes the highest pollutant loading.
While EPA recognizes that many watershed projects focus on
single sources of nonpoint pollution such as agriculture, we want
to encourage, to the greatest extent possible, a comprehensive
approach to water quality protection. Watershed projects that
demonstrate a comprehensive approach will be given higher priority
for section 319 funding.
States are encouraged to design watershed projects that not
only address local water quality problems but also demonstrate new
or innovative technical and institutional approaches that can be
used more widely to address the major sources of nonpoint pollution
identified in State assessment reports. For example, a project to
reduce contamination from an abandoned mine might be appropriate in
a State that has widespread mining activities. Analogous
examples would apply in States having substantial activities in row
crop cultivation, animal feeding operations, forestry, hydromodi-
fication, and urban development.
3. Minimum Requirements for All Watershed Projects
The December 1987 Nonpoint Source Guidance (p.27) states that
implementation plans are required for all watershed projects and
that Regions should assure that these plans are developed in
sufficient detail to assure accountability. In FY 1990, due to
time constraints, EPA allowed States to submit detailed
implementation plans for watershed projects after submission of
their grant work program. Starting in FY 1991, watershed
implementation plans must be submitted with the final grant work
program in order to be eligible for funding.
21
-------
Implementation plans for all watershed projects should, at a
minimum, include:
o Identification of water quality threat or problem -r
Include information from the nonpoint source assessment
report on whether the water resource is threatened or its
use impaired. The nature and extent of the water quality
problem should be identified, including an inventory of
all point and nonpoint sources, as appropriate.
o Nonpoint source control objectives - Plans should describe
what is expected to be accomplished in a two to five year
period'. Objectives must relate to all the identified
water quality problems, be quantitative, and make progress
towards achieving or maintaining State water quality
standards and/or antidegradation provisions. For example,
where water quality standards for fecal coliform are
violated and a 75 percent reduction is needed to
attain/maintain water quality standards, an objective
might be to reduce fecal coliform loadings to a waterbody
by 75 percent.
o Institutional roles and responsibilities - Roles and
responsibilities of agencies involved must be identified,
regardless of funding source. Where possible, one agency
at the local level should be identified as the lead agency
for the watershed project.
o Critical areas - The approximate size of the critical
areas to be treated should be identified on a map and
quantified. The critical areas should be large enough to
ensure that the measures implemented there will have a
significant impact on restoring or protecting designated
beneficial uses in a particular water resource.
o Types, estimated costs and schedule for best management
practice implementation - The types, estimated costs and
a schedule for implementation of BMPs and other approaches
must be identified. Watershed implementation projects may
be phased in over several years with partial funding
provided by successive section 319(h) grants. Acceptance
of phased watershed projects, however, does not imply a
commitment by EPA to fund future project activities in
subsequent years. Project performance, the availability
of section 319(h) funds, and other variables, such as
availability of funding from other sources, will influence
each year's grant award process.
o Monitoring and evaluation - All watershed projects should
include an appropriate monitoring component to evaluate
effectiveness, including ambient effects monitoring and
beneficial use assessments, wherever feasible. This will
22
-------
assist in documenting pollution reductions as mandated in
section 319(h)(11). See the next section on Monitoring
for more detailed discussion of monitoring requirements.
o -Information/education and public participation component -
The plan should document how interested and affected
publics will be involved in the selection, design and
implementation of the watershed project. Also, the
educational activities to be conducted in the watershed
project should be identified, including a schedule. In
addition, each watershed project should include a plan for
communicating lessons learned to other areas of the State
through the statewide nonpoint source information and
education program.
4. Additional Minimum Requirements for Projects Funding Cost
Sharing to Individuals
Section 319(h)(7) provides that States may use section 319(h)
funds to provide financial assistance to individuals only if the
costs are related to implementing "demonstration projects." This
provision and the legislative history of section 319 emphasize that
Congress did not intend for section 319 funding to be used for
general cost sharing to individuals to support the implementation
of BMPs, nor is it EPA's policy to do so.
Following are additional minimum requirements to be addressed
in implementation plans for watershed/ground-water demonstration
projects involving section 319-funded cost sharing to individuals:
o Demonstrations of new or innovative technical or
institutional approaches - The implementation plan must
identify the new or innovative BMPs, technology or
institutional approaches which will be used. The intent
of these projects should be to accelerate the transfer
and adoption of new or innovative BMPs, technology or
institutional approaches. The determination of whether a
potential project is designed to demonstrate new or
innovative technology or institutional approaches will be
determined by EPA Regional Offices in consultation with
States and EPA Headquarters.
o Public participation and technology transfer - A plan,
including scheduled activities, to involve interested and
affected publics, and activities to transfer technology
must be identified for each project. A number of
significant activities (sucjti as field tours, newsletters,
annual evaluations and reviews, interim reports of
progress) must be included to educate interested and
affected publics and to transfer technology.
23
-------
o Cost Sharing Rates and Requirements - Specific cost
sharing rates and other requirements for the application
of BMPs or other cost sharing to individuals must be
negotiated between EPA Regional Offices and States. It is
recommended that the total Federal contribution of cost
sharing to any individual not exceed 75 percent of the
total cost of the practice or activity. Recipients of
section 319 cost sharing to install BMPs must agree to
comply with the operation and maintenance requirements for
such practices as identified in the Soil Conservation
Service's (SCS's) Field Office Technical Guides or other
appropriate"Federal/State/local standards.
o Nutrient and Pesticide Management - Landowners and
operators receiving section 319-funded cost sharing must
practice nutrient and pesticide management consistent with
the SCS's Field Office Technical Guide, CZARA Guidance
Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint
Pollution in Coastal Waters (see Attachment C for a
detailed citation). or other appropriate Federal/
State/local standards to be eligible for section 319 cost
sharing.
5. Watershed Resource Restoration Element
In order to give greater emphasis to funding specific
watershed resource restoration activities at the local level, at
least 10 percent of each State's overall work program should be
devoted to watershed resource restoration activities. Watershed
resource restoration activities include, for example, projects that
restore wetlands, lakes, rivers, streams, coastal zones and
estuaries, shorelines, riparian areas, seagrass beds, coral reefs,
and other aquatic habitats. States should identify such watershed
resource restoration activities in their work plan, and these acti-
vities should also be identified as watershed resource restoration
activities in the Grants Reporting and Tracking System (CRTS).
In-stream/near-stream restoration activities are an important
component of an overall watershed restoration strategy, but should
not be used without consideration of physical and biological
processes. Restoration planning should include consideration of
the natural function of the ecosystem as well as root causes of
habitat deterioration or decline of desired species. For example,
where physical structures are proposed (e.g., check dams, drop
structures, rip rap, deflectors), the proposal should demonstrate
that the fundamental problems causing accelerated erosion or
habitat destruction have been analyzed and are being addressed. In
certain circumstances, installing physical in-near/stream
structures without addressing the fundamental problems in the
watershed may do more harm than good. Please note as well that a
24
-------
section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may be
required to conduct certain watershed resource restoration
projects.
B. Monitoring
EPA considers appropriate monitoring an essential element of
section 319 grant work programs, for several reasons. First, there
is a clear need for better and more extensive documentation of the
effectiveness, from a water quality point of view, of individual
BMPs, BMP systems and watershed-level strategies to prevent and
control nonpoint source pollution. Second, in the case of
watershed projects intended to demonstrate a new or innovative
technical or institutional approach to resolving nonpoint source
water quality problems, monitoring is essential to developing the
information and data necessary to demonstrate the project's
effectiveness and the applicability of the approach elsewhere.
Third, monitoring is necessary to enable EPA to assess the
"progress made in reducing pollution in the navigable waters
resulting from nonpoint sources and improving the quality of such
waters" (section 319(m)(1)). Therefore, an appropriate type of
monitoring should be a part of all watershed projects funded with
section 319 grants.
EPA's monitoring approach is based on four principles: 1)
evaluation is an essential aspect of successful' nonpoint source
pollution control; 2) the evaluation method must fit the situation;
3) use of a variety of evaluation methods is appropriate; and 4)
evaluating effectiveness is feasible and often inexpensive. EPA
believes the most effective way to apply these principles to the
section 319 grant program is to adopt a two-tiered approach as
follows.
l. Monitoring in All Watershed Projects
Each watershed project should include some form of monitor-
ing to evaluate effectiveness. The evaluation approach should be
tailored to the specific project and should be based on factors
such as the project's size and objectives. Approaches that can be
used to meet the project evaluation needs include ambient water
quality monitoring (e.g., edge-of-field, small watersheds, multiple
watersheds, in-lake), beneficial use assessment (e.g.,
biological/habitat assessment, attainment of water quality
standards), implementation monitoring (e.g., audits, activity
tracking, geographic information system tracking of land use and
land management), model projections, and photographic evidence.
Ambient monitoring and beneficial use assessment tracking should be
included for all projects wherever feasible. EPA Regions should
require that each watershed implementation plan include clearly
stated monitoring objectives and an evaluation strategy making
clear what the State expects to learn as a result of its evaluation
of the project.
25
-------
While States may use section 319(h) grant funds for monitoring
activities for particular watershed projects, States are encouraged
to explore other approaches to conducting monitoring. For
examples, the U.S. Geological Survey and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration provide support for various monitoring
activities, and citizen volunteer monitoring programs =•-" =>
resource in many States.
are
2. Regional Set-aside for a National Evaluation
To provide a credible national documentation of the
feasibility of controlling and preventing pollution resulting from
nonpoint sources, and to improve technical understanding of
nonpoint source pollution and the effectiveness of nonpoint source
control technology and approaches, EPA believes it is necessary to
provide for more rigorous and standardized monitoring of a
representative subset of watershed projects funded under section
319. Therefore, each EPA Region will annually set aside five
percent of its entire section 319 Regional allocation (i.e., the
sum of all the base program planning targets for the States in the
Region plus the Region's lump sum for competitive awards) to be
awarded to one or more of its States as supplementary funds to
support more intensive water quality monitoring of selected
projects within the Region. EPA Regions, in consultation with
Headquarters, will work with their States to identify candidate
projects and then, based on work programs developed by the States
and a national framework for selecting types of projects, will, in
consultation with Headquarters, select between 1-6 projects (based
on amount of Regional monitoring set-aside) to receive
approximately $50,000 each in additional section 319 funds to
undertake water quality monitoring that will contribute to the
national evaluation. This monitoring will be continued for this
subset of selected watershed projects for appropriately long
periods of time e.g., 6-10 years.
EPA has developed a national framework for selecting types of
projects for this national evaluation (see Attachment H, Program
Plan for the Section 319 National Monitoring Program). In
addition, EPA expects that projects participating in the national
evaluation will follow minimum monitoring guidelines prescribed by
EPA in the following document: U.S. EPA. Office of Water. Nonpoint
Source Control Branch. 1991. Watershed Monitoring and Reporting for
Section 319 National Monitoring Prog-ram Pro-iects.—Washington,
p.C.). These guidelines specify acceptable monitoring designs and
include minimum sampling protocols for chemical, biological,
physical, and habitat parameters. Land treatment monitoring is
elso addressed. EPA has developed software in support of this
guidance (U.S. EPA. Office of Water. 1992. NonPoint Source
Management System. NPSMS Version 3.01 User's Guide. Washington,
p.C.) and will continue to provide technical support to assist
projects in project development, monitoring design, data management
and analysis, and reporting.
26
-------
C. Urban storm water Runoff
The priority for funding activities to address urban storm
water not regulated by NPDES permits established by the original FY
1990 section 319(h) grants guidance is retained. EPA has since
issued several regulations defining what activities are subject to
the NPDES permit requirements of section 402(p)(2) of the CWA.
Permit application requirements for "Phase I" storm water
dischargers, that is, municipal separate storm sewers serving large
or medium-sized populations (greater than 250,000 or 100,000
people, respectively), and storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity, were issued in November 1990 (55 FR 47990).
(To get further information on what's covered or not covered under
these Phase I regulations, call the Storm Water Hotline at
(703)821-4823.)
EPA is currently in the process of determining what storm
water discharges will be covered by "Phase II" of the storm water
program. The Water Resources Development Act, signed into law on
October 31, 1992, extended the moratorium on permitting Phase II
stormwater sources (those not covered by the November 16, 1990
regulations) from October 1992 to October 1993. Until EPA issues
regulations specifying what additional storm water discharges are
subject to NPDES permit application requirements, States may use
section 319(h) funds for those urban storm water discharges that
are not addressed by existing, Phase I storm water program
requirements.
Regions should continue to focus section 319(h) funds on
measures to prevent pollution of urban storm water, with priority
given to activities which address urban runoff before it enters a
storm sewer system or other conveyance.
Listed below are several urban runoff management activities
that could be eligible for section 319(h) funding:
o Technical assistance to State and local storm water
programs that address storm water runoff not
covered by the NPDES permit program;
o Source and runoff control BMP implementation (except
discharges covered by the NPDES permit program);
o Information and education programs;
o Technology transfer and training; and
o Development and implementation of regulations, policies,
and local ordinances to address storm water runoff not
covered by the NPDES permit program.
27
-------
Historically, storm water management control efforts have
focused on water drainage problems i.e., water quantity. Now many
storm water control BMPs are designed to control both water
quantity and water quality. The use of section 319(h) funds for
storm water control BMPs should, however, be limited to the
incremental cost associated with the water quality component of the
practices.
Section 319(h) nonpoint source control funds may not be used
to implement the requirements of the new NPDES (point source) storm
water regulations. For example, section 319(h) funds may not be
used to meet permit application requirements such as mapping storm
water systems, identifying illicit connections, characterizing
storm water discharges, or monitoring required by permits. In
addition, section 319 (h) grant funds may not be used to pay for
BMPs or "end of pipe" treatments which are or are anticipated to be
required as part of an NPDES permit.
D. Ground-Water Element
EPA will award all section 319 grants under section 319(h),
in lieu of awarding separate grants under section 319(i). EPA
believes that this approach will encourage integration of ground-
water concerns with overall State nonpoint source control programs.
However, in recognition of the importance of nonpoint source
impacts on ground water, at least 10 percent • of each State's
overall work program should be devoted to addressing priority
ground-water nonpoint source activities described in this section.
Each State should identify in its work program the ground-water
activities that it will undertake to implement the ground-water
element. While a State may choose to undertake ground-water
activities beyond the minimum of 10 percent of their work program,
those that choose not to undertake ground-water protection
activities or choose to undertake activities below that level
should explain their reasons. EPA will consider whether to
withhold some or all of the funds in the ground-water element and
may reallocate the unused portion to other States for such
activities.
1. priorities for the Ground-Water Element
EPA recognizes that a State's information and understanding of
its ground-water resources and related priority protection needs
may be considerably less developed than the State's information and
understanding of its surface-water protection needs. If a State
already has a good basis for determining its ground-water
priorities, then the State should implement efforts to address
these priorities. On the other hand, where the requisite
information to establish State implementation priorities is
lacking, EPA encourages the State, as authorized by section
319(h)(5)(D), to use the section 319 ground-water element to
further its assessment and characterization of ground-water
28
-------
resources and to establish a basis for identifying priority
protection needs prior to undertaking any site-specific measures.
Since EPA and the States are interested in making the most
effective use of limited section 319 grant funds, EPA encourages
States to set ground-water protection priorities that focus on
protecting those ground waters that, if contaminated, would pose
the most significant human health, welfare and ecological risks.
Therefore, priority areas for ground-water protection would include
wellhead protection areas, ground-water recharge areas, and zones
of significant ground water/surface water interaction. EPA
encourages States to conduct assessments to identify and prioritize
such areas.
Depending on the level of development of a State's ground-
water protection program, certain program areas should be
considered priorities for funding under the ground-water element.
Where necessary, funded projects should focus on increasing the
State's institutional capabilities, capacity for implementing
programs, and capabilities for credible enforcement that advance
the State toward implementation of comprehensive nonpoint source
control programs. Examples of such activities include resource
characterization, ground-water assessments, delineating priority
areas for ground-water protection (e.g., wellhead protection areas,
ground-water recharge areas, and zones of significant ground
water/surface water interaction) and establishing a monitoring
network. .In States with more advanced ground-water programs,
priorities may include demonstration projects with transferrable
results, or possibly localized ground-water assessment and
protection activities e.g., control of nonpoint discharges in
wellhead protection areas.
Only priority ground-water activities identified in approved
section 319 management programs are eligible for section 319(h)
grants, either through direct identification in the program or
through incorporation by reference of the State's Ground-Water
Protection Strategy or Comprehensive State Ground-Water Protection
Program. If such activities are not currently included, the
State's management program should be amended.
2. Consistency with State Ground-Water Programs
EPA encourages each State to undertake its section 319
ground-water efforts in a manner consistent with the priorities
established in the State's overall Ground-Water Protection Strategy
and Comprehensive State Ground-Water Protection Program. States
should take appropriate action to resolve any discrepancies that
may exist between the State's ground-water protection programs and
the State's approved nonpoint source program. To promote such con-
sistency, the State's grant application should specify coordination
mechanisms with the State's lead ground-water agency or program
29
-------
responsible for developing and implementing the State's ground-
water protection strategy.
Consistent with the priorities described above, section
319(h) grants may fund best management practices that control
nonpoint sources so as to avoid causing ground-water contamination
i.e., pollution prevention. However, Regions should not allow
States to use the limited section 319(h) funds to clean up ground
waters that are already contaminated (e.g., by installing pump and
treatment operations). Rather, section 319 funds should be
directed at controlling the sources that would cause new
contamination or further contamination of existing sites.
E. Contaminated Sediments
A considerable body of data exists that links nonpoint sources
of pollution with contaminated sediments e.g., pesticides and
salinity from agriculture, and metals and organic chemicals from
urban runoff and mining. Many of these pollutants have been found
to be toxic to aquatic life and cause decreased diversity in
aquatic ecosystems. Many of these pollutants in sediments
bioaccumulate up the food chain and pose threats to wildlife and
human consumers of fish and shellfish.
Sediment can also be contaminated by more conventional
nonpoint pollutants such as nitrogen and phosphorus. These
pollutants can cause ecological damage to surface waters by
contributing to eutrophication and low dissolved oxygen levels.
Clean sediment can also be detrimental by smothering breeding
grounds and feeding areas, causing damage to fisheries and wildlife
nationwide.
In response to the above and other problems, EPA developed an
Agencywide Contaminated Sediment Strategy which describes how the
assessment, prevention, remediation, and dredged material
management programs in EPA will be focused on reducing or
eliminating the ecological and human health risks posed by
contaminated sediments. The Strategy was released for review in
March 1992 and three national forums were held to discuss the
strategy with the public. The Strategy has been rewritten to
incorporate public comments and will be released again in 1993 for
another round of public review.
In the December 1987 Nonpoint Source Guidance EPA encouraged
States to provide information regarding those waters not meeting
water quality standards due to sediment and other pollutants. The
guidance also classified "in-place contaminants" as a nonpoint
source pollution category. Correspondingly, prevention of
sedimentation or contamination of sediments is eligible for funding
under section 319. Although remediation of in-place contaminated
sediments could be eligible for section 319 funding in some cases,
30
-------
EPA's section 319 policy is to use funds for controlling the
sources of sediment contamination (e.g, for prevention activities).
F. Pollution Prevention
On November 12, 1992, EPA's Deputy Administrator issued
Agency-wide guidance to promote pollution prevention in conducting
activities under EPA grant assistance programs (see Attachment G
for the guidance memo and EPA definition of pollution prevention).
Many of the grant-eligible activities under section 319(h) meet the
definition of pollution prevention. Attachment F provides some
examples to assist in applying the Agency definition of pollution
prevention specifically to the nbnpoint source program.
Subject to statutory and regulatory constraints, the Deputy
Administrator's guidance encourages and supports State initiatives
to use pollution prevention approaches in grant assisted
activities. In grant negotiations with the States, Regions are
expected to actively encourage States to undertake pollution
prevention initiatives as a means of accomplishing their activities
under the grant agreements. Within work plans, States should
clearly identify pollution prevention activities.
The Deputy Administrator also requested an annual report of
pollution prevention accomplishments under grant assistance
programs, including successes and barriers 'to implementing
prevention approaches. Regions should include this reporting
requirement in negotiated grant agreements with States (see next
section on Reporting Requirements for more details). States are
not required to do a separate annual report on pollution prevention
activities but rather should include relevant information on
pollution prevention in their annual nonpoint source progress
reports required pursuant to section 319(h)(11).
v- GRANTS MANAGEMENT CRITERIA FOR AWARDING SECTION 319(h) GRANTS
In addition to the factors outlined above, Regions must
assure that grant applications fulfill certain statutory
requirements and other criteria established by EPA to assure that
section 319 funds are used in a cost-effective manner to implement
State nonpoint source management programs. The most important of
these criteria are discussed below,' but Regions should also utilize
applicable provisions of EPA's general grant regulations, 40 CFR
Part 31. Funds should not be awarded unless the following criteria
are met.
A. 319 (h) Grants are to be Awarded as Continuing
Environmental Program Granta
A review of the statute and the legislative history behind the
authorization of the section 319(h) program concludes that the
31
-------
clear intent of Congress, in drafting the CWA amendments, was to
direct the States to develop and implement management programs for
the control of nonpoint source pollution. Therefore, all section
319(h) grants should be awarded as Continuing Environmental Program
grants, consistent with the 40 CFR, Part 35, Subpart A regulations.
However, these grants are unique because they possess functions of
continuing annual program functions as well as numerous project-
oriented activities. For example, States may receive section
319(h) grants to implement both ongoing statewide nonpoint source
control programs as well as to carry-out project-specific
activities (at the State or sub-State level.)
The section 319(h) grants also have some unique administrative
characteristics differentiating them from other EPA Continuing
Environmental grant programs, and, therefore, require some
different procedures in the administration of these grant
agreements. For example, most Continuing Environmental Program
grants have one-year budget periods. Section 319(h) grants,
however, may necessitate multiple-year budget and project periods.
The flexibility with regard to length of budget periods is
necessary to reflect the actual time it takes to complete these
longer-term nonpoint source projects.
In addition, it is not necessary to close out section 319(h)
grants on an annual basis, as most other Continuing Environmental
Program grants are required to do (e.g., section 106 grants).
Regions are encouraged to award new Continuing Environmental
Program grants each year rather than to add funds to an existing
State grant through amendments. This should allow for greater
program accountability over the multi-year duration of these
grants. The Regions must also ensure that all existing State
grants are properly closed out at the conclusion of the project
period.
The 40 CFR Part 35 regulations (35.141) allow for
reimbursement of pre-award costs. The regulation stipulates:
"For a continuation award made after the beginning of the
approved budget period, EPA will reimburse the applicant for
allowable costs incurred from the beginning of the budget
period, provided that such costs are contained in the
approved application and that the application was submitted
before the expiration of the prior budget period."
B. The Work Program Must Demonstrate That Each Funded Worfc
Program Task Will Implement specific Activities Identified
in the Approved Management Program
Section 319(h) of the CWA provides that section 319(h) grants
are to be made "for the purpose of assisting the State in
implementing such management program." The grant work program must
therefore "implement" the approved nonpoint source management pro-
32
-------
gram; the Region should assure that each task will in fact lead to
accomplishment of identified management program activities or
objectives. Grant work programs should specifically identify, for
each work program task, the element or elements of the approved NFS
management program that will be addressed by the task. (Specific
ground-water protection activities that are not described in the
nonpoint source management program are eligible if the activities
are included in a State's Ground-Water Protection Strategy or
Comprehensive Program, and the State's nonpoint source management
program makes reference to these documents or programs.)
Similarly, work programs should clearly indicate the specific State
and local agencies responsible for implementing each task.
C. The Work Program Must Specify Outputs and Milestones
On May 31, 1985, the Administrator issued an Agency-wide
Policy on Performance-Based Assistance. That policy establishes as
a fundamental principle of grant agreements that States and EPA
should share a common set of expectations regarding performance
commitments, reflected in the agreements by the specification of
measurable outputs. Consistent with this policy, the section
319(h) grant work program must clearly describe each task, the
funding to be used to accomplish the task, and the outputs to be
produced by performance of the task. This will not only assure
that the State and EPA have shared expectations, but will also
assure that the State's subsequent performance can be assessed
objectively.
Outputs for tasks should always be quantified. Examples
include holding four public workshops for 200 people each; issuing
five technology-transfer manuals, each covering particular
specified subjects; promulgating two regulations covering specified
activities; employing two full-time personnel providing technical
assistance, one full-time person conducting monitoring and
inspection activity, and one full-time person conducting
enforcement activity; and conducting three demonstration projects
affecting 25,000 acres of cropland. If an unusual instance occurs
where an activity's output cannot be described in quantitative
terms, the activity should be described in specific enough terms to
ensure that no misunderstanding develops as to the level of
performance contemplated by the State and EPA.
Equally important, the 1985 policy provides that work
programs should specify both interim milestones and final dates for
completion of tasks. Section 319(b)(2)(C) and (h)(11)(A) rein-
force the need for specific milestones in section 319(h) grants.
Schedules should be realistic, but they must assure expeditious
performance. Interim milestones should be sufficiently frequent to
assure timely performance throughout the project period, so that
problems can be identified and corrected expeditiously. The
milestones in the State nonpoint source management program, both
33
-------
for funded and unfunded activities, will play a particularly
important role when the Regions conduct periodic evaluations of
State nonpoint source programs, review grant applications, and make
determinations 'of whether the States have exhibited satisfactory
progress, pursuant "to section 319(h)(8).
D. The Non-Federal Share Must Be At Least 40 Percent
Section 319(h)(3) provides that the Federal share shall not
exceed 60 percent of the management program implementation cost and
shall be made on the condition that the non-Federal share is
provided from non-Federal sources. The match need not be on an
item-by-item ' basis, but rather should be a single figure that
covers the entire non-Federal share of the costs for implementation
activities. The non-Federal match does not need to be contributed
at the time of the grant award but the funds must be contributed in
a timely manner as needed to meet the schedules established in work
program milestones. EPA Regions must verify that grantees have
satisfied the match requirements upon review and submittal of the
grantee's final Financial Status Report.
E. Special Conditions to be Included in all Grants
All section 319(h) grants are governed by EPA's general grant
regulations, 40 CFR Parts 31 and 35. In addition to these
requirements, the State's section 319(h) grant is subject to the
following requirements, which should be reflected in special grant
conditions.
1. Reporting
The section 319 (h) provisions under the Clean Water Act (CWA)
authorize the Agency to collect the following program
accountability and reporting information: (1) section 319(h)(10)
permits the Agency to collect information, data and reports as
necessary to ensure a State's continuing eligibility to receive
section 319 grants; and (2) section 319(h)(11) requires States to
report annually on the status of their programs, including progress
made in meeting milestones, as well as the reductions achieved in
addressing nonpoint loadings and water quality improvements through
implementation of approved management programs. In addition,
section 319(h) grants are covered under the Agency's general grant
regulations, 40 CFR Parts 31 and 35, that specify a variety of
basic grant reporting requirements for awarding grants to States
and localities. The unified grant regulations, 40 CFR Part 31.40
in particular, outline a range of reporting requirements, including
performance and financial reports.
In negotiating section 3l9(h) grants, the Regions should work
closely with their States to incorporate appropriate reporting
requirements into each grant agreement, either through specific
grant conditions, or within the actual work program document (see
34
-------
Attachment D for generic grant condition language). The Regions
and States are encouraged to assess the effectiveness of the
reporting process and determine annually if adjustments or
modifications are necessary and mutually beneficial. The general
grant regulations (40 CFR Part 31) provide sufficient flexibility
to allow the Agency, in consultation with the States, to determine
the appropriate reporting requirements, within certain boundaries,
and to specify their content and frequency.
Although flexibility and reasonableness are encouraged, the
Agency's fiduciary responsibilities are clearly mandated.
Therefore, reporting requirements should at a minimum be consistent
with the reporting requirements mandated by the section 319 statute
and by 40 CFR Part 31. Specifically, they should be sufficiently
detailed to determine whether outputs and milestones are being
achieved on schedule, to identify any problems that may be
developing in carrying out tasks in the grant work program, to
identify corrective actions to address such problems expeditiously,
and to adequately account for all Federal funds expended.
a. Basic Reporting Requirements
Recipients of funds awarded under section 319(h) of the CWA
are required to provide information to EPA under the following
reporting categories: (1) performance reports; (2) nonpoint source
program progress reports; and (3) financial status reports.
(i.) Grantee Performance Reports:
EPA Regions will require States, at a minimum, to submit
annual performance reports on section 319(h) grants, pursuant to 40
CRF, Part 31.40(b)(1) and CWA section 319(h)(11). Regions have the
discretion to also require quarterly or semi-annual reports.
Performance reports, however, should not be required more
frequently than quarterly, pursuant to 40 CFR, Part 31.
Annual performance reports are due 90 days after the grant
year — quarterly and semi-annual reports shall be due 30 days
after the reporting period (or other due dates agreed to by the
Regions and States). In addition, final reports are due 90 days
after the expiration or termination of grant support, pursuant to
40 CFR Part 31.
Annual performance reports should include at a minimum:
o Performance/Milestone Summary: A listing of major program
and project accomplishments for the period (based on the
project and program milestones or commitments contained
within approved work programs, grant agreements, or
special conditions/agreements), as well as progress made
toward meeting future milestones.
35
-------
o Slippage Reports: Provide reasons for delays in meeting
scheduled milestones/commitments and discuss what actions
(State, Federal or other) will be taken to resolve any
current or anticipated problems.
o Additional pertinent information including, when
appropriate, analysis and explanation of cost overruns,
unanticipated events/consequences, etc.
(ii.) Konpoint Source Progress Reports:
Section 319(h)(ll) of the CWA requires States to report
annually on progress in meeting nonpoint source management program
milestones, reductions in nonpoint source loadings, and improve-
ments in water quality resulting from program implementation. The
purpose of this report is to address the broader accomplishments of
the States's program vis-a-vis the goals and objectives contained
the management program. The following information should be
included in the progress reports:
1. General description of overall State program
accomplishments in meeting the goals and objectives
contained in the management program. Discussions should
focus on the status of "statewide" implementation efforts
as well as specific implementation projects or watershed
oriented activities, including the status of individual
•milestones contained within each State's approved
management program.
2. Summary of water quality improvements on a statewide and
watershed basis, e.g., reduction in loading/methods used.
3. Listing of further actions necessary to achieve CWA goals,
including any recommendations for future EPA programs to
control NPS pollution.
4. Brief case'studies of any particularly successful NPS
control efforts. Each State should prepare at least two
case studies per year highlighting the significant
accomplishment(s) of the State's program and/or any
particular project. Beginning in FY 94, EPA intends to
prepare and distribute an annual report summarizing
effective State nonpoint source control activities.
In addition to the above statutory requirements, States should
also include information relevant to their progress in meeting
Agency pollution prevention mandates. The basic requirements for
pollution prevention reporting are outlined in the attached memo
from Hank Habicht, "State Grants Guidance; Implementation of
Pollution Prevention," dated November 12, 1992. (see Attachment G
and section IV, F above).
36
-------
(ill.) Financial status Reports:
Grantees shall submit Financial Status Reports (FSRs) using
Standard Form 269 or 269 (a) to report the status of funds under
each grant, pursuant to 40 CFR, Part 31.41(b). FSRs are required
no more frequently than quarterly. If the Agency does not specify
the frequency, then reports are required annually. Where quarterly
or semi-annual FSRs are required, they will be due 30 days after
the reporting period. Final FSRs are due within 90 days after the
expiration or termination of the grant agreement.
b. Reporting Procedures and CRTS
The Regions are encouraged to work with their States to
design reporting procedures that will promote efficiency and reduce
unnecessary duplication of work. For example, States could choose
to prepare a consolidated annual report that satisfies both the
annual or quarterly performance reports as well as the annual
section 319(h)(11) progress report requirement. In addition, the
Regions should explore ways to coordinate and synchronize the
submittal of performance reports of other EPA programs managed
within the same State office, e.g., sections 106, 104(b)(3),
305(b), 604(b), etc.
Beginning in FY 1994, all section 319(h) performance report
data (annual, semi-annual or quarterly performance reports) must be
entered through the Nonpoint Source Grants Reporting and Tracking
System (CRTS) (see Attachment D for recommended grant condition
language requiring States to utilize CRTS for program reporting
purposes). We anticipate that the necessary CRTS system
refinements to allow performance and progress reporting will be
available by the end of the first quarter of FY 1994. However, if
system modifications do not occur as planned, normal 319(h) grantee
reporting procedures will remain in effect.
The CRTS data system, accessed via a personal computer and
modem, became operational in October 1992, and is designed to track
and report on a wide variety of program and grant related
information. The system contains four basic levels of grantee
information:
(1) basic financial information such as grant amount, funds
expended and amount of matching State funds;
(2) information on how States plan to expend funds by NPS
category(s);
(3) project cost information and descriptions for
individual projects; and
(4) project milestone data comparing proposed schedules
with actual events.
See Attachment E for a listing of required CRTS reporting elements.
37
-------
Since CRTS is an official reporting vehicle for programs or
projects conducted by States under section 319(h) grants, the
Regions should ensure that States have identified or targeted
sufficient resources in their grant applications/work programs to
meet these reporting requirements and management support needs.
Examples of GRTS system support needs include: providing adequate
staff support; purchasing of necessary ADP equipment, materials,
and supplies; EPA mainframe access capability; and attending GRTS
system conferences and training.
The design and accessibility of the GRTS system provides a
unique opportunity to streamline and reduce the section 319
reporting requirements. For example, the GRTS framework will
accommodate, through a series of narrative fields, the information
required to prepare a consolidated annual performance and progress
report. The system will also have the flexibility to accept
quarterly performance data for those Regions requiring more
frequent reporting.
Because much of the data necessary to track the financial
progress of the section 319 grants are currently tracked within the
GRTS structure, we anticipate that the workload necessary to
produce performance reports will be substantially reduced. By FY
1995, we anticipate that GRTS system will be able to satisfy the
annual FSR reporting requirement. Until we have that ability,
States will continue to submit the required FSR Form 269. Further
information on the GRTS system, including copies of the User
Manual, can be obtained- from the Assessment and Watershed
Protection Division (WH-553) (see Attachment C for detailed
citation).
2. Maintenance of Effort
As stated in the December 1987 Nonpoint Source Guidance, a
grantee who applies for a section 319(h) grant must meet the
maintenance-of-effort (MOE) requirement of section 319(h)(9) by
establishing and maintaining its aggregate annual level of State
nonpoint source pollution control expenditures for improving water
quality at the average level of such expenditures in FY 1985 and
1986. States should establish their FY 1985 and 1986 level and
annual levels based on expenditures by the primary State agency or
agencies responsible for the State's nonpoint source pollution
control activities.
This means that:
o A State must maintain an annual level of expenditures on
nonpoint source activities equal to the average of its FY
1985 and 1986 nonpoint source expenditures i.e., its MOE
base level.
38
-------
o The State's MOE base level should include expenditures
only from non-Federal sources; Federal funds should not be
included in calculating the MOE base level.
o Calculation of expenditures is based on activities of the
primary State nonpoint source agency or agencies
responsible for the State's nonpoint source pollution
control activities, not on what might be termed related
activities of other State agencies with primary missions
other than nonpoint source control. For example, if the
State water quality agency and agricultural agency both
have specific nonpoint source water quality control
programs, these should be counted in the MOE. State soil
conservation programs having water quality improvement or
maintenance as a primary objective will be included in a
State's MOE.
o The MOE base level or annual level cannot include the MOE
or matching expenditures for other Federal programs and in
particular sections 106, 319, 205(j)(5), 314, and 117.
o Determination of whether the State expenditures meet the
MOE level for purposes of awarding a section 319(h) grant
will be based on the grantee expenditures projected in the
grant application. (The State will report whether it has
met its MOE requirements in its final Financial Status
Report at the end of the budget year.)
See memorandum NFS FY-88-39, issued on July 12, 1988 for
additional guidance regarding MOEs.
3. Limitation on Administrative Coats
Pursuant to section 319(h)(12), the grant must specify that
administrative costs in the form of salaries, overhead, or in-
direct costs for services provided and charged against activities
and programs carried out with the grant shall not exceed 10 percent
of the grant award, except that the costs of implementing
enforcement and regulatory activities, education, training,
technical assistance, demonstration projects, and technology
transfer are not subject to this limitation.
4. Satisfactory Progress
No State shall receive a section 319(h) grant until EPA's
Regional Administrator determines that the State has made
satisfactory progress during the previous fiscal year in meeting
the schedule of milestones specified in section 319(b)(2)(C). The
Regional Office will determine, based on review of annual reports,
mid-year evaluations and other information, if a State's progress
for the previous fiscal year was satisfactory.
39
-------
Because States' schedules of milestones may be out of date
after 12 to 24 months, after some implementation experience,
Regions and States should review and modify as appropriate the
milestones in each State's management program. Periodic
modification to the management programs may be necessary for a
State to be able to meet the requirements of section 319(h)(8).
VI. MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF SECTION 319fh) GRANTS
The availability of annual section 319 appropriations
presents a major opportunity and challenge for States and EPA to
implement nonpoint source management programs that address the
significant threat that nonpoint source pollution poses to water
quality across the country. Critical to the success and
credibility of the national nonpoint source program is the
implementation of a flexible but effective management structure
that establishes productive links between local projects and State
agencies, between the lead nonpoint source agency and other State
agencies, and between lead State agencies and EPA Regions, as well
as with other Federal agencies. It is necessary for EPA Head-
quarters and Regions to assure that relationships at all levels are
productive and that measurable results leading to water quality
improvements are produced by the grants.
Just as the grant agreement specifies outputs and milestones
to be achieved by the States, States should assure that agreements
with sub-State organizations that will be conducting section 319-
funded nonpoint source implementation activities for the State
specify outputs and milestones in memoranda of agreement, contracts
or other appropriate documents. Both the fiscal and programmatic
integrity of nonpoint source programs depend on cooperatively
negotiating and carrying out precise agreements.
Regions should use the Administrator's Performance-Based
Assistance Policy as a guide to negotiating, awarding and managing
grants and assure that State agencies follow the spirit of that
policy to assure accountability in their relationships with sub-
State organizations. Regional oversight of State implementation
should be documented in an evaluation plan. The plan should
include on-site inspection of selected watershed projects as well
as periodic reviews of States' success in achieving outputs and
milestones. Evaluations should consider both the quality and
effectiveness of the work being performed and its timeliness.
Regions are encouraged to conduct on-site, mid-year
evaluations of State nonpoint source programs each year. Because
State activities funded by section 319 were initiated in FY 1990
and because nonpoint source programs are evolving rapidly, Regional
nonpoint source coordinators and other appropriate Regional staff
(e.g., ground-water staff) should visit each State annually to
40
-------
conduct on-site evaluations. On-site, mid-year evaluations of
State nonpoint source programs should address:
o overall progress in implementing State nonpoint source
management programs;
o overall progress in implementing section 319 grants;
o in-depth discussion of a subset of section 319 grant
activities or projects, identified in advance; and
o integration of State nonpoint source management program
with other water programs or activities, e.g. , 106, water-
quality standards and monitoring.
After the evaluation, the Region should provide the State with a
written report summarizing the evaluation findings and should send
a copy of the report to the Assessment and Watershed Protection
Division in EPA's Office of Water.
When evaluation results show that grant and contract
provisions have not been substantially achieved, Regions are
expected to take corrective action. One form of corrective action
could be to determine that the State has not made "satisfactory
progress" under section 319(h)(8), and to deny the State's grant
application the following year. Other forms of corrective action
are described at 40 CFR 31.43.
Where a lead State agency is providing EPA grant funds to
State or local agencies to carry put the terms of a NFS grant, the
Region must hold the lead agency responsible for all outputs in its
section 319(h) work program, even though the activities to achieve
some of the outputs are being carried out by local agencies or
State agencies other than the lead agency. For example, if a local
agency has inadequately performed particular funded activities, the
Region should work with the lead State agency to resolve the
problem. One remedial measure might be for the State to select a
more capable local agency to carry out future tasks of this nature.
EPA Headquarters will also play an oversight role during the
initial years of section 319 implementation. Headquarters
activities will include review of selected management programs,
section 319(h) work programs and watershed plans; participation
with Regions in mid-year reviews of State programs; and on-site
reviews of Regional nonpoint source programs. These activities
will be discussed in detail with the Regions to assure that these
functions complement and reinforce Regional programs.
41
-------
VII. GRANTS TO INDIAN TRIBES
Section 518(f) states that the Administrator may reserve for
Indian Tribes treated as States not more than one-third of one
percent of the amount appropriated for any fiscal year under
section 319(j) for section 319(h) and (i) . EPA intends to continue
to make one-third of one percent of each appropriation available
for 319(h) grants to Tribes.
To be eligible for such grants, Tribes must meet the
requirements for treatment as a.State outlined in section 518(e) of
the Clean Water Act', 40 CFR 130.6 (d) and 130.15, as well as
applicable provisions of 40 CFR 35.750. These requirements are
specified in the interim final rule, "Indian Tribes: Water Quality
Planning and Management," published in the Federal Register on
April 11, 1989 (54 FR at 14354) . In addition, EPA will issue a
special supplemental Tribal information package that summarizes all
the requirements specifically as they relate to Tribal concerns.
It is recommended that Tribes obtain a copy of this information
package.
Tribes, like States must have EPA approved nonpoint source
assessments and management programs in order to be eligible for
section 319(h) grants. Though all portions of the assessment must
be completed in order to be approved by EPA, the Agency may approve
a portion of a Tribes' management program. Once a portion is
approved, a section 319(h) grant can be awarded for those portions
of the management program that have been approved by the Agency.
EPA encourages Tribes that are currently unable to develop complete
nonpoint source management programs, to focus on their highest
priority nonpoint source problems and develop approvable portions
of nonpoint source programs to address those problems. In
addition, section 106 and 104(b)(3) funds are available to Tribes
for developing assessment reports; section 106 funds may also be
used to develop management programs. Technical assistance with the
development of assessment and management programs is available from
EPA.
Indian Tribes are required to meet the matching and
maintenance-of-effort requirements under section 319(h); however,
if a Tribe can demonstrate financial cause, the Federal share of
319(h) funds can be increased to 90 percent. In addition, Tribes
may use in-kind contributions to meet matching requirements.
Because the amount of funds available to Tribes is limited for
nonpoint source purposes, Tribes that do receive grants should have
sufficient funding levels to assure that meaningful work is
accomplished.
42
-------
i
o
§
i
a
i
O>
C
K
c C
0) 00
n in
arveste
(0
1
a
I
a
i
o
o
§
i
(0
a
Q
co
i
§
•5
o
_o
rt
I
O
«
I
o
o
6
0>
CM
cS
6
I
I
i
I
Ł
•0
I!
43
-------
!•§
c •
14
* *
i|
"2 5
§ E
Si e
i .
"I
i 8
* «-
Ł *—
a S
•« i
«
Is
Ł S
*O Ji E
c c Ł
s 'S
54s
—• o c
301=
oS S
•s 2-g
Ł-2 '
a o
0 2
-0 ~
II
c ™
11
•a -5
Ł-1
Ł o
~ *•»
•2 Ł
» e
§•Ł
_c
'E
E
o
c
a
?
t
S
•
§
. s §
**" *5
» e
2 Z
.Ł «
12
o tu
.Ł e
Ii
« S
"5 1
is
Ill
W
?l
S 8 •
*• T3 «
Ł • •
20 S
_ o g
Ł Ł 3
* : -
O •>
Ml
o -s ~
J S 8
< Q. a.
•D
5
!
a.
a.
^
g
Q
?
0.0500
N
§
6
I
c
i
lead Protection
i
s
g
i
f
Ł
am Altotmsnt
5
S
Q.
§
1
1
5
u.
I
6
1
ui
H
Q
|
•g
_o
^1
g
is in the United
1
is 1970's 1980'*.
V
*-
Ii
Jj
Q <0
(0 -g
Z) iZ
Q
i
1
1
1
I
ii
a eo
o> o>
'3 Ul
T5 «
I S
2 «!
z z M
r- o
:
1
-------
ATTACHMENT B
SCHEDULE FOR ISSUANCE OF SECTION 319(h) GRANTS
EPA issues national guidance
including planning targets
(for planning purposes the
President's request level
will be assumed)
EPA Regions meet with States
to develop Regional guidance
and priorities
EPA Regions issue supplemental
guidance
States submit draft work
plans to EPA Regions for base
and competitive portions of
319(h) grants
EPA Regions provide response
to work plans and grant
amounts
States submit final work plans
and grant applications to EPA
Regions
EPA Regions approve work plans
and award grants
FY 94
6/15/93
FY 95 & bevond
4/1
7/93
8/1/93
11/1/93
1/1/94
3/1/94
5/1/94
4-5
6/1
8/1
10/1
12/1
Award ASAP in
new FY but not
later than 2/1
45
-------
ATTACHMENT C
SELECTED REFERENCES
Copies of most references may be obtained by contacting:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division (WH-553)
NPS News-Notes
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington/ D.C. 20460
FAX (202)260-1517
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. March 1992. A
Current Assessment of Urban Best Management Practices; Techniques
for Reducing Non-Point Source Pollution in the Coastal Zone.
Washington/ D.C./ 127 pp.
U.S. Department of Commerce/ National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993.
Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program; Program Development and
Approval Guidance. Washington, D.C., 82 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/ Office* of Information
Resources Management. 1992. Grants Information and Control System
Nonpoint Source Subsystem Users Manual. Washington/ D.C./ 105 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/ Office of Research and
Development and Office of Water. 1992. The National Rural Clean
Water Program Symposium, 10 Years of Controlling Agricultural
Nonpoint Source Pollution; The RCWP Experience. Washington/ D.C./
EPA/625/R-92/006/ 400 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/ Office of Water. 1993.
Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint
Pollution in Coastal Waters. Washington/ D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/ Office of Water. 1993.
Geographic Targeting; Selected State Examples. Washington/ D.C./
EPA-841-B-93-001, 63 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/ Office of Water. January
1992. Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress
on Section 319 of the Clean Water Act (1989). Washington, D.C., 197
pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. January
1992. U.S. EPA Nonpoint Source information Exchange Computer
Bulletin Board System (BBS). Washington, D.C., 64 pp.
46
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
PoUcy, Plannmg and Evaluation. !989. Selectin
Source Promts: YOU Better Shon AreUT,d. *
and
B»inS"*!1?!??1". *•?•,, PBrPtection Agency, Office of Water, Monitoring
Branch. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for nao in streams am?
Rivers; Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. g,^^^ * * "d
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Nonooint
Source Control Branch. August I99i. Watershed iten* " N°np°int
Reporting for Section 319 National Monitorial
D.C. " ~ • a~
Protection Agency, Office of Water
'-~fc 1990. Nonpoint Source '
— — — -»MV*» « «» ^ ^ w • «W*A^W XJU U OOUrCB
Reporting Requirements for Watershed implementation ^-.^g.
Washington, D.C., 29 pp. —
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, office of water, Nonpoint
T«™L C°*ntr01 Br,?n,ch\. 199°* Rura^ Clean Water Program; LMaan«
Learned from a Voluntary Nonpoint source contTvM **
TO * ^ 1% ^ ** ^ir^i «•. ^ 1^ ^* «K «h ^_ ~~ ^^«i^— __^.^_ , _ fi-
Washington, D.C., 29 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, office of Water, Nonpoint
source Control Branch. n«e«mv.o^ i»o-> Nonpoint Source — • •
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, office of water, Nonpoint
S«nn«? .Ctntr01 BraJlch- "87. Setting Privities: Th» ,^ ?-
Nonpoint Source control. Washington, D.C., 51 pp. - -
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of water, Office of
Marine and Estuarine Protection. 1989. Saving Bavs and Estuaries .
A Primer - for - Establishing and Managing Estuarv Pro-ieets.
Washington, D.C., EPA/503/8-89-001, 80 pp. - -
urban
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V. 1990
Targeting and BMP Selection; An Information and Guidance *>*-
State NPS Program Staff Engineers and Managers. Chicago,
54 pp.
EPA is currently working on the following documents and drafts of
these documents are available:
National Water Quality Evaluation Project, North Carolina state
University, (draft report).The Nonooint Source Manager's Guide to
Water Quality Monitor^^. Raleigh, N.C., unpublished.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X. (draft report).
A Manager's—Guide—to NPS Implementation Projects. Seattle,
Washington, 34 pp., unpublished.
47
-------
ATTACHMENT D
GENERIC GRANT CONDITION ESTABLISHING
STATE REPORTIMG REQUIREMENTS
The recipient (State lead NFS agency) agrees to comply with
all reporting requirements required by EPA regulation and guidance.
All reporting information will be submitted according to the
schedule(s) required in the Parts 31 and 35 regulations, national
guidance, and/or as specified by the EPA Regional Office. The
three basic reporting categories include: Grantee Performance
Reports [40CFR, Part'3l.40(b) (1)]; Nonpoint Source Progress Reports
[CWA, Section 319(h)(11)]; and Financial Status Reports [40 CFR,
Part 31.41(b)].
The grantee agrees to use the Agency's Grants Reporting and
Tracking System (CRTS) to provide all performance reporting data
whenever possible. Failure to comply with the above referenced
reporting requirements may result in a disruption of grantee
funding and/or early termination of the grant agreement (in
accordance with 40 CFR, Part 31.43).
48
-------
ATTACHMENT E
NATIONALLY MANDATED DATA ELEMENTS UNDER SECTION 319
GRANTS REPORTING MUD TRACKING SYSTEM (GRTS)
Data Element Names
- Work Program Received Code/Date
- Work Program Approved Code/Date
- NPS Project Title
- NPS Competitive/Base Award
NPS Ground-water Code
- NPS Quality Assurance Plan Approved Code/Date
- NPS (Project) start Code/Date
- NPS (Project) Completion Code/Date
- NPS Category
NFS Functional Category
NPS Waterbody Type
NPS Theme Codes
- NPS Budget 319(h) Funds
- Pollution Prevention
- Watershed Restoration
49
-------
ATTACHMENT F
APPLYING THE DEFINITION OF POLLUTION PREVENTION
TO THE NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM
The following list is intended to illustrate the types of
nonpoint source activities that meet the EPA definition of
pollution prevention. However, pollution prevention activities
eligible under section 319(h) grants are not limited to this list.
Examples include:
o Use of various land management practices and techniques that
keep sediment in place (with respect to urban areas, cropped
farmland, grazing areas, forestry, etc.);
o Restriction of erosion-indueing activities in sensitive
areas;
o Changes in pesticide, fertilizer, and water application
methods, rates, and timing to maximize effectiveness to
target species and reduce loss of inputs (with respect to
urban and agricultural runoff, forestry, etc.);
o Use of more environmentally benign pesticides, plant strains
with natural resistance to pests, and drought-tolerant crops
and vegetation;
o Improved pesticide storage, handling, mixing, and loading
practices to reduce spills; and
o improved chemical inventory control to reduce waste from
exceeding shelf-life of chemicals.
Pollution prevention may be promoted directly through on-the-
ground projects as well as through training, technical assistance,
and public education/outreach to encourage adoption of pollution
prevention techniques and practices, to the degree that these
activities are eligible under section 319(h) as provided by the
statute and this guidance. Monitoring activities to determine
effectiveness of a specific pollution prevention project may also
be counted toward pollution prevention activities.
50
-------
ATTACHMENT G
AGENCYWIDE GUIDANCE ON POLLUTION PREVENTION
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AOENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 204*0
I 2 1992
HEMOKAVDDX
State Grants Guidance: integration of Pollution
Prevention
SUBJECTS
raOMi F. Henry Kabicht
Deputy Administrator
TOi Assistant Administrators
Regional Administrators
This memorandum announces the Agency-wide pollution
prevention Guidance, beginning with the FY'94 state grants cycle.
It has four goals:
• Promoting pollution prevention in State programs
supported through Federal grants by establishing
National Principles to guide worJcplans negotiated
between Regional Offices and states;
• Ensuring that grant requirements as interpreted by
EPA/State workplana are flexible enough to support
innovative State pollution prevention activities;
• Establishing a simple accounting process to share
information on successful State projects, and identify
statutory or other barriers to funding state proposals;
and
• Building sustained State capacity in pollution
prevention to the extent consistent with statutory
grant requirements.
All of these objectives are subject to any statutory and
regulatory limitations that apply in specific circumstances.
The Guidance should help integrate pollution prevention into
the Agency's activities as required by the Pollution Prevention
Act of 1990. By emphasising flexibility, the Guidance
complements other Agency efforts to build a productive
environmental management system in partnership with the States,
and improve coordination with existing State pollution prevention
programs.
2608511
11-13-92 12:35PM PQQ3 tt2.5
-------
In general/ this Guidance applies to all of the Agency's
media-specific state grant programs, but particularly to the
following: clean Air "Act 5105—-Air Pollution Planning and
Control; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act $3011—Hazardous
Waste; Federal Insecticide. Fungicide, and Rodentieids Act
§23(a)(1)—pesticides; Toxic Substances Control Act $28—
Enforcement and Enforcement Activities under S313 of the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act; and Slain
Water Act §106—Surface Water, §104(b) (3)—wetlands and Water
Quality Management, and §319 (h>—Non-Point Source Management.
Building on the Agency's many successful pollution
prevention efforts, beginning in PY'94 EPA's grant programs--
working with States—should explicitly promote pollution
prevention in State workplans (also called agreements). This
memorandum will be incorporated into the annual Agency Operating
Guidance as well as program-specific Guidance developed this
winter with the advice of the State/EPA operations Committee.
Program Guidance, intended to tailor the Agency-wide commitment
to each grant program, will be applied by Regional Offices and
States in the development of grant-assisted work.
The Rational Principles stated below should help guide
development of SPA/a tats workplans. These should be re* leeted in
program-specific Guidance, weighed in vorkplan discussions, and
used to qualitatively assess program progress in integrating
pollution prevention* la applying these Principles, Regional
Offices should use or expand upon the menu of flexibility options
below to respond to fitats needs to the extent possible. Annual
aooompliihnsnt reports, discussed below, will help assess BP**s
progress in supporting pollution prevention-oriented Btate
workplans and initiatives.
national Principles
Guidance for each grant program covered by this document
should make clear that pollution prevention—as defined in the
Agency-wide memorandum of May 28, 1992 (attached)--is EPA's
preferred approach to environmental management where technically
and economically feasible. Consistent with the Pollution
Prevention Act, the Guidance should further the integration of
pollution prevention into state activities—e.g. inspections and
permits—that are supported by EPA grants. While pollution
prevention is not mandated, the Principles are intended to ensure
that it is considered fairly in EPA/State workplans.
Specific proposals from States that are consistent with
these principles should be considered good candidates for funding
through the grant programs. In addition, Regional Offices should
taka the initiative to suggest pollution prevention approaches,
drawing upon program-specific Guidance and implementation
workshops. Regional offices and states are expected to use their
R-95X
2608511
11-13-92 12-.35PM P004 825
-------
3
discretion in applying these Principles; they are not obligatory
elements of every negotiated workplan, but rather factors for
serious consideration in the negotiation process.
The Principles are:
1) The workplan applies the EPA definition of pollution
prevention (see memorandum of Hay 28, 1992) consistent with the
Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 and the 1991 EPA Pollution
Prevention strategy.
2) The vorkplan reflects an explicit preference for pollution
prevention and identifies pollution prevention activities,
products, or approaches.
3) The workplan incorporates pollution prevention as a priority
in environmental management decisions made by the grantee as part
of the grant-assisted activities.
4) The workplan encourages opportunities to modify existing or
to develop new equipment, technology, processes, procedures,
products, or educational or training materials to promote
pollution prevention.
5) The workplan encourages institutional coordinations-including
coordination with existing State pollution prevention programs—
and multi-media opportunities for pollution prevention.
6) The worXplan complements or builds upon existing EPA
pollution prevention projects (e.g. the work of multi-media
industry clusters such as the Source Reduction Review Project,
and the use of pollution prevention in enforcement settlements).
7) The workplan identifies and applies measures and ways of
documenting pollution prevention progress as part of the grant-
assisted activities (e.g. provides opportunities for measurable
pollution prevention).
8) The workplan includes activities or approaches that may serve
nationally as innovative models for other State or local
programs. Workplans also should encourage innovative approaches
already developed by other State or local programs, and improve
coordination to build on existing successes.
9) The vorkplan structures grant output information so that EPA
can make pollution prevention data and experience available to
other States and the Pollution Prevention Information
Clearinghouse.
Clearly, both partners must comply with any applicable statutory
or regulatory requirements and take into account other factors
that may be important. Regional Offices and States may identify
R-95%
260851 1
U-13-92 12:35PM P005 *25
-------
additional Principles to guide workplan requirements.
Many Regional Offices already have made adjustments to
accommodate flexibility needs. The purpose of this Guidance is
to encourage such flexibility. Whenever possible, workplans
should accommodate State flexibility needs associated vith
incorporating pollution prevention approaches into their grant-
assisted activities. That means working within the parameters of
statutory and regulatory requirements to arrive at an agreement
that is practical and meets the parties1 needs. Options for
flexibility include (but are not limited to) :
a) Adjustments in numbers or types of required outputs
including, for example, (1) tradeoffs or disinvestment from
traditional requirements (non-statutory and non-regulatory)
and (2) multiple credit for a single "multi-media11
inspection that emphasizes pollution prevention.
— An example of (1) is RCRA's RIP -Flex Guidance, vhich
allows disinvestment from national priority activities and
re-investment in Regional or State priorities: up to 25% of
enforcement resources in FY'92 and '93.
--An example of (2) is being tested in Region One with
Massachusetts' Blacfcstone project. The key issue is how to
"bean-count" a single multi-media inspection claiming to
satisfy enforcement requirements under multiple statutes and
promote pollution prevention technical assistance.
b) Adjustments in timing of non-statutory and non-
regulatory EPA deadlines.
c) Identification of a percentage of funds for pollution
prevention within each media program, coordinated by a
pollution prevention office.
—For example, Region 10 has agreed to Alaska's request to
allow the state to Identify 3% (5% over the next two years)
of grant program aonies — RCFA, air, and water— for pollution
prevention, to be coordinated by the pollution prevention
offioe. The monies will be reflected in specific activities
reaeonably related to each program *s contribution and
statutory objectives. The annual EPA/Stats Agreement will
explicitly identify pollution prevention activities and
specific disinvestments in each program.
d) Adjustments in traditional or administrative procedures
or schedules to eaee EPA/ State interaction.
To allow EPA to evaluate progress in integrating pollution
prevention into state grant programs, each Regional Office should
R-95X
2608511
11-13-92 12:35PM P006 #25
-------
provide an annual report summarizing pollution prevention
accomplishment* (e.g. activities, products, approaches, etc.)/ as
reflected in grants-assisted vork. The report may take any form
and nay draw upon reports developed to satisfy other
requirements.
While program-specific Guidance may elaborate further, each
report should identify: a) success stories, Including innovative
State projects funded under this Guidance; and b) any barriers
(statutory or otherwise) that led a program to reject state
proposals or to decide against including pollution prevention
approaches, in addition, recommendations on regulatory,
administrative, or other changes to improve flexibility would be
helpful. Your contribution of this information is key to making
pollution prevention a reality in BPA's on-going bread and butter
vork.
Conclusion
Incorporating pollution prevention into EPA.'a policies and
programs is a collaborative effort requiring EPA to work in
concert with our State partners. The National Principles and
Annual Reports described above will help us to measure our
progress and build on our successes.
Attachment
2608511
11-13-92 12:35PM PQQ7
-------
ATTACHMENT H
Program Plan for the
Section 319 National Monitoring Program
March 1991
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Washington, D.C.
-------
Introduction
To provide a credible national documentation of the
feasibility of controlling and preventing pollution resulting
from nonpoint sources, and to improve technical understanding of
nonpoint source pollution and the effectiveness of nonpoint
source control technology and approaches, EPA believes it is
necessary to provide for more rigorous and standardized
monitoring of a subset of watershed projects-'funded under section
319 (USEPA 1991 - p. 3). The necessity of providing feedback to
the public, law- makers, project managers, and state water
quality program leaders is clear and critical to the long-term
success of §319. Such feedback supports management efforts and
sound decision making. Information from this program will result
in a more focused project by allowing managers to answer the
questions: Is the project of sufficient scope and is it meeting
its stated objective? Also, the public and lawmakers will be
better able to evaluate the water-quality benefits of the NFS
control program. This program plan provides information on the
§319 National Monitoring Program objectives, schedule, and
operation. Project selection criteria are also described in this
document. Detailed monitoring and reporting guidance will be
provided in a subsequent document. This document is being
provided to assist the Regions in fostering state watershed
project proposals that will meet the needs of the 319 National
Monitoring Program.
Background
Attempts to evaluate non-point source pollution controls
have been ongoing since the early 1970s (Humenik et al. 1987).
The earliest efforts focused mostly on changes in land use
management activities with little water quality monitoring.
Consequently definitive statements concerning the restoration of
physical, chemical, and biological integrity could not be made.
The Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP) and other national
programs included an effort to collect data on receiving waters
(Maas et al. 1988, USEPA 1990a). These data focused primarily on
water column chemistry conditions (USEPA 1988). Some studies did
directly evaluate the swimming and shellfishing conditions
(objectives of the Clean Water Act (CWA)) by monitoring fecal
coliform levels in water bodies. Many of the studies did show
improving conditions in water quality parameters using chemical
measures. Preliminary results from projects in Idaho, Minnesota,
and Nebraska indicate that biological monitoring can be
-------
effectively used to evaluate progress in reaching the fishable
goal of the CWA.
Numerous lessons were learned from the RCWP (Maas et al.
1988) and other national programs that can now be applied to
future NPS pollution control programs to move the process
forward. The lessons most pertinent to State and EPA pollution
abatement programs are as follows:
projects should have priority for funding based on
their likelihood of reducing NPS pollutants,
projects should have clearly stated goals and
objectives (related to use designations),
implementation of land treatment should be integrally
tied to water quality impacts and goals,
pre-implementation data is needed to gauge progress or
lack thereof,
and ambient water quality data and land use data are
both needed to evaluate results.
Program objective
The principal objective of the §319 National Monitoring
Program is to document the measurable water quality improvements
resulting from nonpoint source (NPS) control measure
implementation as required under §319(h)(ll). It is not an
objective of this program to evaluate a statistically
representative sample of all watershed projects. Only a small
subset of §319 projects will be funded for additional monitoring
in this program. Therefore, project selection should be biased
toward projects that have the potential to show results within
the timeframe of the program. Monitoring must be directed toward
ambient measures of environmental impact.
Lessons learned from RCWP that are incorporated into this
program include: project priority ranking, clear goal and
objective setting, critical area definition, linkage of
implementation to defined problems, pre-implementation data
collection, and land use/ambient water quality data collection
(for a more detailed description of these concepts see Maas et
al. 1988; Maas, Smolen, and Dressing 1985; Maas et al. 1985; and
Spooner et al. 1985). Only those projects that address these
concerns (and other relevant concerns that follow) and have a
likelihood of succeeding in demonstrating progress towards water
quality goal attainment should be included in this National
Monitoring Program.
-------
Time frame
The RCWP and other NFS programs have made it clear that*up
to a ten-year project life span is typically needed to document
results. It is not generally realistic to expect improvements in
water quality criteria in time frames shorter than this. Thus
the National Monitoring Program will be carried out over a ten-
year period. Individual projects may yield final results prior
to the ten year deadline. In such cases, documentation of goal
attainment should be the final phase of the project. Adequate
monitoring should be provided to demonstrate that "goal
attainment" has been achieved.
Reporting
Annual reports of basic data (USEPA 1990b - p.l) will be due
each September 1. A five-year progress report giving preliminary
results will be due September 1 after the fifth year of project
life. A final project report detailing achievement of project
goals will be due on or before September 1 after project
completion. EPA .will produce a national interim* report in 1996
and a final report in 2001.
Funding
Funding for monitoring projects will be provided annually as
part of state §319 grants awarded from regional set-asides for
monitoring (USEPA, 1991 - p. 23). The separate budget required
for each national monitoring project (USEPA 1991 - p. 9) should
include an itemization of monitoring cost for the project. The .
monitoring budget should show the sources and uses of monitoring
funds. Consistent with the §319 grant guidance, States need not
match on a project-by-project basis.
The funding process for FY 1991 is different from that which
will be used in subsequent years (USEPA 1991 - p. 23). Figure 1
shows the time lines for FY 1991 and beyond. Because the period
for submission of grant applications in FY 1991 is short and
awards are to be made by August 15, applications for national
monitoring projects should be submitted and negotiated as rapidly
as possible.
It is important to note that §319 grant funds are two-year
monies. For example, there is no statutory mandate that FY 1991
grant funds have to be obligated (awarded) prior to the end of FY
1992. After the award is made to the state, the money becomes
no-year money and is available for state use for the period
specified in the grant.
-------
If projects do not meet the selection criteria detailed in
-his document, Regions should not fund them as part of the
National Monitoring Program. Although the §319 guidance states
that funds not awarded by August 15 (for FY 1991, but August 1
for subsequent years) must be returned to headquarters for
reallocation. Regions may choose to hold back FY 1991 monitoring
funds for award in FY 1992 if that step is necessary to assure
approval of high quality monitoring projects.
It is important however, to recognize the process generally
used by EPA for those funds that are not expended by the end of a
fiscal year. The comptroller's office may call in all
unobligated (carryover) funds and then reallocate them back to
the regions within a period of up to several months. The funds
will then be reallocated for the same uses (e.g. §319 grants)
unless the agency decides to make changes. Historically, there
is little or no precedent for the agency to make such changes.
Selection and project development process
EPA Regions, in consultation with the Assessment and
Watershed Protection Division (AWPD) at Headquarters, will work
with their states to identify candidate projects for inclusion in
the National Monitoring Program. EPA Regions in consultation
with AWPD, will select between 1-6 projects (based on amount of
Regional set-aside) to receive approximately $50,000 each in
additional §319 funds to undertake water quality monitoring for
the National Monitoring Program.
Headquarters input to the project selection process will be
provided through the Director, AWPD. Headquarters
recommendations will generally be given to the Regions within two
weeks of receiving application materials.
Selection criteria
The minimum requirements for all watershed projects are
specified in the §319 grants guidance (USEPA, 1991 - p. lg)-
These requirements plus specific monitoring considerations should
form the basis for selecting projects for the National Monitoring
Program.
The specific monitoring considerations are essentially the
same as the identified to-be-revised monitoring and reporting
draft guidance (USEPA, 1990b), but important additions to that
guidance are being made. Most notably, biological and habitat
monitoring will be added, with minimum requirements for those
monitoring approaches specified. States will have the option of
choosing among physical/chemical, biological, and habitat
monitoring approaches to meet the monitoring requirements for tne
-------
National Monitoring Program. Regions, however, are encouraged to
fund a mix of physical/chemical and biologic.arl./habitat monitoring
projects.
Because monitoring of lotic environments has provided the
greatest success to date in documenting water quality
improvements resulting from nonpoint source implementation, the
National Monitoring Program has been developed for stream and
estuarine monitoring. This National Monitoring Program does not,
however, preclude any additional monitoring of lakes, coastal
waters, wetland, and ground-water projects that states may wish
to perform in conjunction with other watershed projects. In
fact, in many cases it may be appropriate for a state to
supplement the stream monitoring performed for national purposes
with other monitoring to document use support or trends in the
primary water resource of interest. States also have the option
to propose a wide range of monitoring programs within their
overall §319 grant work programs.
Specific concerns related to the minimum requirements in the
§319 guidance (USEPA, 1991 - p. 19) are: . .
Identification of water quality threats or problems
Those,proposals that include field verification of the
existence of an impact on ambient stream conditions will be given
higher consideration in the selection process. Information that
should be provided to document problems includes, but is not
limited to:
- A description of water resources in the area, including
gradients, flows, geomorphology, watershed sizes, waterbody
sizes, ground water/surface water interactions, hydrology etc.
- Project location (political, geological, ecoregional)
- Water quality standards violations data (where applicable)
or other indications of the severity of the problem.
- A description of the key factors (chemical, physical,
biological, fisheries, existing management programs etc.)
affecting use support.
- A seasonal assessment of use impacts, with critical
periods identified (monitoring should be tied to critical
periods).
- A list of pollutants affecting use support, the levels at
which they are found, and pollutant transport modes, including
lag times.
-------
- A description of major pollutant sources and a map showing
their relationship to}the impacted water resource.
- Pollutant budgets for key pollutants, including point
sources and nonpoint sources.
- Estimates of pollutant control needed to achieve water
quality objectives.
- A land use map.
- A short narrative describing the relationship of land
use/management to the use impacts, including an historical
accounting. Discuss current land management patterns (e.g.
irrigation), existing NFS control practices, etc.
- Climate date and important meteorologic factors.
- Soil types geology slopes.
Clearly, not all of the above information will be available
for all projects. Those projects, however, which do a better job
of providing these types of information will be given greater
consideration for selection.
Nonpoint source control objectives
Each proposal should include a clear and concise project
objective that addresses the documentation of trends based on
monitoring of water quality parameter(s) directly related to the
nonpoint source impacts on the water resource.
Project area size
The ability to successfully document control of a NFS
problem is in part a function of the size of the project area.
It is recommended that projects included in the National
Monitoring Program cover areas no greater than 30,000 acres and
preferably be much smaller.
Institutional roles and responsibilities
Proposals that identify an individual who will serve as
overall project coordinator will be given nigher consideration.
A description of the project coordinator's duties and time on the
job is essential.
Relevant standards, rules, regulations, and laws that
pertain to the project (including zoning laws) should be
addressed along with the relationship of the 319 project to other
federal, state, or local projects. Incentives that will
-------
8
encourage participation of affected land owners should be
described. The extent of land owner participation expected
within the critical areas and the basis for those expectations
should be provided. Past and present institutional arrangements
and their successes should be considered in evaluating this
category.
Critical areas
A concise definition of all critical areas (Maas, Smolen,
and Dressing 1985; Maas et al. 1985) should be provided. There
is a higher probability of documenting water quality improvements
if critical areas are clearly defined and a large percentage of
the critical area is scheduled for treatment. A critical area
definition should identify the pollutant or pollutants involved,
the source or sources of the pollutant, and the pollutant
transport system.
The critical area definition should reflect the relative
magnitude of source, pollutant delivery to the waterbody,
relationship of the pollutant to use impacts, treatability, and
relative treatment costs. Such an approach will help project
planners select treatment areas that will provide, necessary
pollution control and a greater likelihood of water quality
improvements.
Watershed plan
The proposal should include an implementation plan with
systems of BMPs that address the defined water quality problems.
Critical area treatment goals should be specified in quantitative
terms. BMP systems should be related to the sources and
pollutants they will be used to control. The specific BMP
information that will be required under the National Monitoring
Program is identified in the draft §319 monitoring guidance
(USEPA, 1991b). Few, if any, changes are expected to be made
regarding this aspect of the monitoring guidance.
Monitoring Plan and Evaluation
The overall monitoring design in the proposal should be
clearly documented. The preferred design is the paired watershed
design which has been demonstrated to be the most effective
methodology for detecting and understanding trends in water
quality data (Spooner et al. 1985). In some proposals, the
paired watershed design will not be feasible, in which case an
optional study design such as upstream/downstream sites should be
considered; EPA will provide acceptable monitoring design
options in its revised §319 monitoring guidance. The current
draft (USEPA, 1990b) describes the options for physical/chemical
monitoring only.
-------
When revised the monitoring guidance will Include biological
and habitat monitoring techniques. At this rime it is not
possible to articulate the specifics of the biological and
habitat approaches ro be recommended, but in is safe to assume
that generally accepted protocols (fish, marr-invertebrates) will
be included.
Land treatment and precipitation/irrigation monitoring are
also key aspects of the monitoring to be performed under the
National Monitoring Program. Detailed descriptions of these
monitoring needs are provided in the draft §319 monitoring
guidance (USEPA, 1990b). It is not expected that the land
treatment and precipitation monitoring aspert-? of the guidance _
will be modified.
Quality assurance and quality control procedures must follow
those described in'USEPA 1979; 1980; 1984a,b, =md c.
Technical assistance
EPA will provide technical assistance and advice for
monitoring program design through two technical assistance
centers located in the eastern and western United States.
Currently, the eastern center is at North Carolina State
University, and a western center will be established shortly.
Data will be provided to EPA Headquarters annually using
formats to be provided in the revised §319 monitoring guidance
(i.e. USEPA, 1990b will be revised). EPA will provide monitoring
design, data analysis, and reporting services to the state and
regional project managers and will be responsible for national
summaries and reports. EPA may also provide training on
monitoring protocols as funds allow.
Citations
Humenik, Frank J., M.D. Smolen, and S.A. Dressing 1987. Pollution
from Nonpoint Sources. Environ. Sci. Technol. 21(8):737-742.
Maas, Richard P., S..L. Brichford, M.P. Smolen, and J. Spooner.
1988. Agricultural Nonpoint Source Control: Experiences from the
Rural Clean Water Program. Lake Reserv. Manage. 4(l):51-56.
Maas, R.P., M.D. Smolen, and S.A. Dressing. 1985. Selecting
Critical Areas for Nonpoint-Source Pollution Control. J. Soil
Water Conserv. 40(1):68-71.
Maas, R.P., M.D. Smolen, S.A. Dressing, C.A. Jamieson, and J.
-------
10
Spooner. 1985. Practical Guidelines for Selecting Critical Areas
for Controlling Nonpoint Source Pesticide Contamination of
Aquatic Systems. In: Perspectives on Nonpoint Source -ol
EPA 440/5-85-001. p 363-367. '
Spooner, J., R.P. Maas, S.A. Dressing, M.D. SmoLen, and F.J.
Humenik. 1985. Appropriate Designs for Documenting Water quality
Improvements from Agricultural NPS Control Programs. In:
Perspectives on Nonpoint Source Pollution. EPA 440/5-85-001 D
30-34. ' F
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. Handbook for
Analytical Quality Control in Water and Wastewater Laboratories
EPA 600/4-79-019. Washington D.C.:USEPA
. 1980. Guidelines and Specifications for Preparing Quality
Assurance Project Plans. QAMS-005/80. Washington D.C.:USEPA,
. 1984a. Policy and Program Requirements to Implement the
Quality Assurance Program. EPA Order 5.360.1. Washington
D.C.:USEPA
. 1984b. The Development of Data Quality Objectives.
Washington D.C.:USEPA.
. 1984c. Guidance for Preparation of Combined Work/Quality
Assurance Project Plans for Environmental Monitoring. OWRS QA-1.
Washington D.C.:USEPA.
. 1988. NWQEP 1988 Annual Report: Status of Agricultural
Nonpoint Source Projects. EPA 506/9-89/002. Washington
D.C.:USEPA.
. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for use in Streams and
Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. EPA/444/4-89-001.
Washington D.C.:USEPA.
• 1990a. Rural Clean Water Program: Lessons Learned from a
Voluntary Nonpoint Source Control Experiment. EPA 440/4-90-012.
Washington D.C.:USEPA.
. 1990b. (January 1990 draft) Nonpoint Source Monitoring and
Reporting Requirements for Watershed Implementation Grants. USEPA
Office of Water.
. 1991. (February 15 1991) Final Guidance on the Award and
Management of Nonpoint Source Program Implementation Grants under
section 319(h) of the Clean Water Act. USEPA Office of Water.
-------
-------
919 FUNDS (dollars in thousands) *
NOV
393
STATE
REGION 1
1 CONNECTICUT
1 MAINE
1 MASSACHUSETTS
1 NEW HAMPSHIRE
1 RHODE ISLAND
1 VERMONT
REGION 2
2 NEW JERSEY
2 NEW YORK
2 PEURTO RICO
2 VIRGIN ISLANDS
REGION 3
3 DELAWARE
3 DIST. OF COL
3 MARYLAND
3 PENNSYLVANIA
3 VIRGINIA
3" WEST VIRGINIA
REGION 4
4 ALABAMA
4 FLORIDA
4 GEORGIA
4 KENTUCKY
4 MISSISSIPPI
4 NORTH CAROLINA
4 SOUTH CAROLINA
. 4 TENNESSEE
REGION 5
5 ILLINOIS
5 INDIANA
5 MICHIGAN
5 MINNESOTA
5 OHIO
5 WISCONSIN
REGION 6
6 ARKANSAS
6 LOUISIANA
6 NEW MEXICO
6 OKLAHOMA
6 TEXAS
REGION 7
7 IOWA
7 KANSAS
7 MISSOURI
7 NEBRASKA
STATE
PLANNING
TARGET
FY1993
1,414.3
243.2
291.6
337.0
189.9
168.5
184.1
1 ,466.7
414.6
845.8
139.2
67.2
2,161.4
178.4
155.4
331.9
731.9
489.7
274.2
4,311.2
488.2
974.7
581.5
425.9
477.5
578.8
388.4
396.3
4.568.7
1 ,024.2
558.2
727.5
859.2
755.7
644.0
2,972.4
489.3
605.3
304.1
393.7
1,180.0
2,057.6
569.2
459.8
575.1
453.4
STATE
PLANNING COMPETITIVE
TARGET POOL
FY 1994 FY 1994
2,262.8 2,262.8
389.1
466.5
539.2
303.9
269.6
294.5
2,346.7 2,346.7
663.3
1 ,353.2
222.7
107.5
3,458.2 3,458.2
285.4
248.6
531.1
1.171.0
783.5
438.6
6,897.9 6,897.9
781.0
1 ,559.5
930.4
681.5
764.0
926.0
621.4
634.1
7,309.9 7.309.9
1 ,638.7
893.0
1,164.0
1 ,374.7
1.209.1
1 ,030.4
4,755.8 4,755.8
782.9
968.5
486.5
629.9
1 ,888.0
3,292.1 3,292.1
910.7
735.7
920.2
725.5
TOTAL
FY1994
4,525.6
4,693.4
6,916.4
13,795.8
14.619.8
9,511.6
6,584.2
-------
FY94 SECTION 319 FUNDS (dollars in thousands) *
STATE STATE
PLANNING PLANNING COMPETITIVE
STATE
REGION 8
8 COLORADO
8 MONTANA
8 NORTH DAKOTA
8 SOUTH DAKOTA
8 UTAH
8 WYOMING
REGION 9
9 ARIZONA
9 CALIFORNIA
9 HAWAII
9 NEVADA
9PACTRUSTTER.
9 AMERICAN SAMOA
9 GUAM
9 MARIANAS
REGION 10
10 ALASKA
10 IDAHO
10 OREGON
10 WASHINGTON
TOTAL
TARGET
FY1993
2.123.7
314.8
329.4
601.0
407.2
228.6
242.7
2,408.6
408.6
1 ,327.6
192.0
211.6
67.2
67.2
67.2
67.2
1 .433.1
303.0
307.4
344.8
477.8
24,917.7
TARGET POOL TOTAL
FY1994 FY1994 FY 1994
3,397.8 3,397.8 6,795.6
503.7
527.0
961.6
651.5
365.7
388.3
3,853.7 3,853.7 7,707.4
653.8
2,124.1
307.2
338.6
107.5
107.5
107.5
107.5
2,293.1 2,293.1 4,586.2
484.8
491 .9
551.7
764.7
39,868.0 39,868.0 79,736.0
Grand Total 319
Indians
80,000.0
264.0
0.33%
* Funds should be awarded as pci the "Final Guidance on the Award
of Nonpoint Source Grants Under Section 319(h) of the Clean Water
Act for FY 1994 and Future Years (June 24,1993)."
-------
NONPOINT SOURCE GUIDANCE
DECEMBER 7987
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF WATER
OFFICE OF WATER REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
WASHINGTON, D.C.
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
i.
PAGE
Introduction
A. Goals 1
B. The State Clean Water Strategy 1
C. Nonpoint Source Management in the State
Clean Water Strategy 2
D. Definicion of Nonpoint Source Pollution 3
E. Program Inter-relationships 3
II. Implementation Approach
A. Development of State Assessment Reports
1. Introduction 4
2. State Assessment Report Requirements 4
3. Explanation ". 5
4. Criteria for Approval of State Assessment Reports. .."..... 8
B. Development of State Management Programs
1. Introduction 11
2. State Management Program Requirements 12
3. Explanation 13
4. Criteria for Approval of State Management Programs 16
C. Administrative and Other Provisions
1. Deadline for Approval/Partial Approval 19
2. Procedure for Disapproval 19
3. Which Agency is to Serve as the Lead for the 319 Program. 20
4. Water Quality Management Plan Updates 20
5. States Electing Not to Submit Assessment Reports 20
6. Local Agency Submittal of Management Program 21
7. Annual Reports by States and Report to Congress 21
8. Cooperation Requirement 23
9 . Interstate Management Conference 23
10. Indian Tribes 23
11. Technical Assistance 24
III. Grant Application Requirements
A. Section 205(j)(5) 25
B. Section 319(h) 28
C. Section 319(i) 32
D. Section 201(g)(l) 32
E. Section 603(c)(2) 32
F. Section 604(b) 33
Appendix A: Definition of Navigable Waters and Waters of the U.S
Appendix B: Major NPS Pollution Categories and Subcategories
Appendix C: NPS Provisions in the Water Quality Act of 1987
-------
-------
NONPOINT SOURCE GUIDANCE
I, INTRODUCTION
A. Goals
The Water Quality Act of 1987 (WQA) states:
it is the natioral policy that programs for the control
of nonpoint sources of pollution be developed and imple-
mented in an expeditious manner so as to enable the goals
of this Act to be met through the control of both point
and nonpoint sources of pollution.
This goal focuses on the importance of controlling nonpoint sources
of water pollution. With the enactment of section 319 of the WQA,
new direction and significant Federal financial assistance for the
implementation of State* nonpoint source (NFS) programs has been
authorized. The WQA requires two major reports to be completed by
August 4, 1988: a State Assessment Report describing the State's
NFS problems and a State Management Program explaining what the State
plans to do in the next four fiscal years to address their NFS problems.
The WQA authorizes financial assistance for developing these reports
and for implementing the State's NFS Management Program.
B. The State Clean Water Strategy
The 1987 legislation mandates a similar approach in information
collection, assessment, and the subsequent development and implemen-
tation of pollution control mechanisms for targeted areas in the new
Surface Water Toxics Control, Nonpoint Source, Estuary, Clean Lakes,
and Great Lakes program areas. These activities, although conducted
under separate program activities, may lead to identifying the same
water resources as being in need of pollution control measures. EPA
is encouraging States to develop State Clean Water Strategies** as a
In accordance with section 518(e) of the WQA, the Administrator is
authorized to treat Indian tribes as States for the purposes of section
319. Therefore, throughout this guidance the term State shall refer to
States, Territories, and those Indian tribes designated by the Agency
under section 518(e).
mLjL
State Clean Water Strategies are in essence a vehicle to better
integrate and coordinate State water programs, and to improve
effectiveness by targeting activities to high priority geographic areas.
For more details on State Clean Water Strategies, see in particular: US
EPA, Office of Water. State Clean Water Strategies: Meeting the
Challenges of the Future, December 1987 and US EPA, Office of Water.
Surface Water and Wetlands Protection Program Operating Guidance FY
1988, April 1987.
-------
means of addressing in a strategic way the variety of water pollution
sources, their inter-relationships and the many water resources that
are threatened.
C. Nonpoint Source Management in the State Clean Water Strategy
States have the opportunity to design and implement NFS programs as
part of an overall State Clean Water Strategy (SCWS) which unifies
and integrates the States' entire approach to water quality pro-
tection and clean-up. Building on existing State water pollution
control programs and activities, SCWS's taay be developed in a three
step process: completing a comprehensive assessment of impaired or
threatened waters; targeting or identifying the sequence for protect-
ing water resources; and developing strategic management plans. In
the area of assessments, the SCWS encourages States to consider com-
bining the similar assessment requirements mandated under the Clean
Water Act (CWA) for nonpbint sources (section 319), lakes (section
314), estuaries (section 320), and surface water toxics (section
304(1)). The advantages of combining these assessment are to: help
States identify geographical problems and crossmedia "hot spots";
make data gaps more apparent; encourage non-traditional, multi-agency
coordination and cooperation; and form the basis for comprehensive
pollution control efforts.
Both the SCWS process and the NFS Guidance call for identifying the
sequence for protecting water resources. Neither the SCWS nor the
NFS Guidance provide a prescriptive ranking and targeting procedure
that States must follow. Rather they provide a general framework
and a set of targeting criteria that States should consider during
the targeting stage of the process. As a practical matter, especially
in the NFS area, States will probably find it both useful and necessary
to carve out a subset of work for concerted action within the multi-year
timefrarae of the SCWS. The guiding principle for this step is to
maximize environmental benefit by devoting resources and efforts to
water resources in a priority order that recognizes the values of the
waterbody in question, the benefits to be realized from various control
actions and the controllability of the problem(s).
Again, both the SCWS and the NFS Guidance call for the development of
multi-year strategic plans. Such multi-year strategic plans provide
the connection between the strategic direction and the State's annual
work plans'for carrying out the work over a multi-year period. The
scope of a management plan depends upon whether the State elects to
use a comprehensive, integrated approach or a more traditional pro-
grammatic approach. So long as the CWA requirements for specific
management plans (nonpoint source, Clean Lakes, estuaries) are met,
the State may submit either one comprehensive management plan or
multiple plans covering each of its program areas.
-------
D. Definition of Nonpoint Source Pollution «
For the purpose of implementing the NPS provisions in the CWA, NFS
pollution is defined as follows:
Nonpoint Source (NFS) Pollution: NFS pollution is caused 'by diffuse
sources that are not regulated as point sources and normally is associated
with agricultural, silvicultural and urban runoff, runoff from
construction activities, etc. Such pollution results in the human-made or
human-induced alteration of the chemical, physical, biological, and
radiological integrity of water. In practical terms, nonpoint source
pollution does not result from a discharge at a specific, single location
(such as a single pipe) but generally results from land runoff,
precipitation, atmospheric deposition, or percolation. It must
be kept in mind that this definition is necessarily general; legal and
regulatory decisions have sometimes resulted in certain sources being
assigned to eithar the point or nonpoint source categories because of
considerations other than their manner of discharge. For example,
irrigation return flows are designated.as "nonpoint sources" by section
402(1) of the Clean Water Act, even though the discharge is through a
discrete conveyance.
E. Program Inter-relationships
With the WQA, States now have additional support and direction for
comprehensive implementation of NPS controls. EPA will encourage
States to develop NPS programs which build upon related programs
such as Clean Lakes, Estuaries, Stormwater Permits, Ground Water,
Toxics Controls, Stat«i Revolving Funds, and Wetlands; and complement
and increase the effectiveness of State and local NFS programs already
underway. In addition, EPA will encourage States to coordinate their
NPS programs with other Federal agencies. For example, USDA's Conser-
vation Reserve and Conservation Compliance Programs play an important
role in the implementition of best management practices to reduce
agricultural NPS pollution.
-------
II, IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH
This section addresses the basic NFS requirements from section 319 of
the Clean Water Act as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987. States
are encouraged to integrate these section 319 items through their State
Clean Water Strategies into their existing processes and resultant docu-
ments (specifically sections 303(e), 106, 305(b), and water quality
management plans).
A. Development of State Assessment Reports
1. Introduction
State Assessment Reports must describe the nature, extent and
effect of NFS water pollution, the causes of such pollution, and
programs and methods used for controlling this pollution.
In order to avoid duplication and to conserve resources, States should
use their 1988 State 305(b) Reports to meet the requirements of State
Assessment Reports. At a minimum, States should use their 1988
State 305(b) Reports which are due by April 1, 1988 as the formal
mechanism for reporting the list of waters impacted by NFS pollution
and the NFS categories or sources contributing to these impacts
(items 2(A) and 2(B) below). This list of impacted waters may be
updated at any time and should be updated for subsequent State 305(b)
Reports. Other assessment items required by section 319 (items 2(C)
and 2(D) below) may be included in State 305(b) Reports as well but
must be submitted no later than August 4, 1988.
EPA guidance for preparing 1988 State 305(b) Reports identifies the
NFS information to be included in the 305(b) Reports for State
Assessment Reports (See US EPA, Office of Water Regulations and
Standards. Guidelines for the Preparation of the 1988 State Water
Quality Assessment 305(b) Report. April 1, 1987). This section 319
guidance provides a more detailed discussion of the requirements
for State Assessment Reports including EPA approval criteria.
2. State Assessment Report Requirements
State Assessment Reports shall include the following four categories
of information:
(A) identification of navigable waters within the State which, without
additional action to control nonpoint sources of pollution,
cannot reasonably be expected to attain or maintain applicable
water quality standards or the goals and requirements of the
Act;
(B) identification of categories and subcategories of nonpoint sources
or, where appropriate, particular nonpoint sources which add
significant pollution to each portion of the navigable waters
identified under subparagraph (A) in amounts which contribute
to such portion not meeting such water quality standards or
such goals and requirements;
-------
(C) description of the process, including intergovernmental
coordination and public participation, for (i) identifying
best management practices and measures to control each category
and subcategory of nonpoint sources and, where appropriate,
particular nonpoint sources identified under subparagraph (B)
and (ii) for reducing, to the maximum extent practicable,- the
level of pollution resulting from such category, subcategory,
or source; and
(D) description of State and local programs for controlling pollution
added from nonpoint sources to, and improving the quality of,
each such portion of the navigable waters, including but not
limited to those programs which will receive Federal assistance
under subsection (h) and (i).
3. Explanation
Sequence - The Assessment Report should be submitted before or
concurrently with the State Management Program.
Use Available Information - The Act specifically encourages the
use of existing reports and information for State Assessment Re-
ports in recognition of the timing required by the Act. Assess-
ment data, however, should be reviewed, updated and refined, as
appropriate. The State Assessment Report should clearly identify
navigable waters where available information does not support
reliable assessment, and provide a strategy and timetable for
completing the assessment of these navigable waters.
Process - An open assessment process is to be used to identify NPS
water quality problem areas. All those with an interest in water
quality should be involved in developing the Statewide list of NPS
problem areas. Groups and agencies with interests in fish and
wildlife, recreation, natural resources, agriculture, forestry,
drinking water, etc. should be consulted in the process of identi-
f"ing such areas. Representatives of environmental groups, indus-
try, regional planning organizations, local governments and the pub-
lic should also participate. This process will help assure that all
available data from diverse agencies and organizations is included,
and that gaps in the data are identified and can be remedied for
future decisions and actions.
What Constitutes NPS-Impacted Waters? - Consistent with the 305(b)
reporting requirements, States should report on assessed waters
for which the State is able to make a judgment about the degree to
which the designated use is supported. The 1988 305(b) Guidelines
establish two levels of assessment, one reflecting conclusions based
on ambient monitoring data and the other based on other information.
The first level is "monitored" waters in which the assessment
is based on current site-specific ambient data i.e., the ambient
monitoring data are less than five years old. The second level is
"evaluated" waters in which the assessment is based on information
other than current site-specific ambient data, such as data on
sources of pollution, predictive modeling, fishery surveys, citi-
-------
zen complaints arid ambient data which are older than five years.
In the NFS area, best professional judgment and various evaluation
techniques will play an important role. When using more subjective
evaluation methods, EPA expects that borderline cases will be included
in the list of waters impacted by NFS pollution.
The Assessment Report should include all navigable waters within
the State which exhibit water-quality-limiting NFS problems (see
Appendix A for definition of navigable waters and waters of the
U.S.). The Assessment should also indicate the total sizes of
waters in the State by waterbcdy type (i.e., miles of rivers and
acres of lakes, estuaries and wetlands) that fully support their
designated uses and the total sizes of State waters not assessed.
(This information should be available from State 305(b) Reports.)
High quality waters [as defined in section 131.12 (a)(2) of the
Water Quality Standards Regulation] in the State where potential
degradation from nonpoint sources due to proposed or actual changes
in cultural activities is a threat, should also be identified.
States should develop their assessments on a watershed-by-watershed
basis. States should not focus only on waters immediately adjacent
to NFS problems, but should also consider downstream segments, lakes
and estuaries where NFS pollutants may accumulate and cause water
degradation.
Section 305fb) Waterbodv System (WBS) - A new data management system,
the WBS, is being developed to manage much of the waterbody-specific,
quantitative information concerning surface water quality and sources
of pollution reported by States in their 305(b) submissions. States
should submit the waterbody-specific information required in the
State NFS Assessment (i.e., the list of waters impacted by NFS
pollution and the categories of sources of NFS pollution for each
of these waterbodies) in a written form in a format consistent with
the WBS (preferably using WBS input forms). EPA will work through
contractors to get the data into the WBS during the summer of 1988.
Use of the actual WBS computer system by the States is optional in
FY 1988. States should consult the Guidelines for the Preparation
of the 1988 305(b) Report and the WBS Users Manual for guidance in
developing and formatting their information.
Wetlands - States should include any information on known wetlands
impacted by nonpoint sources in their NFS Assessment Report.
Ground Water - States should include information on any known or
suspected ground-water problems caused by nonpoint sources in their
NPS Assessment Report. Any ground-water information included in
a State's Assessment Report should be consistent with the State s
ground-water protection strategies. States are encouraged to
refer to EPA's Office of Ground-Water Protection's guidance on the
Wellhead Protection Program which contains a section on "source
identification" (US EPA, Office of Ground-Water Protection. Guidance
for Applicants for State Wellhead Protection Program Assistance
Funds Under the Safe Drinking Water Act. June 1987, p. 21).
-------
Landownership - States should identify water quality problems due to
NFS pollution from all lands regardless of landownership (Federal/
State/local/private).
Categories and Subcategories - The categories, subcategories or
sources of NFS pollution which add pollution to the NFS-impacted
waters included in the Assessment should be identified. Categories
should be identified for each listed waterbody. Particular nonpoint
sources or specific sources which add pollution to an identified
waterbody should also be identified and reported where known. States
should use the computer codes established for the major NFS pollution
categories and subcategories listed in Appendix B for reporting in
their State Assessment Reports. For a State's own implementation
purposes, it may need to further subdivide the major categories and
subcategories of NFS pollution, or may want to define its nonpoint
sources differently. If a State identifies an entirely new category
of nonpoint sources, it should contact EPA (Monitoring and Data
Support Division, WH-553, Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
Office of Water, Washington, DC 20460) to have a new computer code
assigned to the source.
Process for Defining BMPs - The Assessment Report must describe
the process, including intergovernmental coordination and public
participation, used for identifying best management practices.
This coordination/public participation requirement recognizes that
NFS management often requires the coordination of numerous agencies
and organizations which may be affected by NFS management decisions.
States are required to describe the process for identifying BMPs in
their Assessment Reports. In the Management Program, States must
include more details on BMPs including lists of BMPs which are
generally considered appropriate for the various categories and
subcategories of NFS pollution.
Identification of NFS Programs - The Assessment Report must describe
State and local programs to be used in the implementation of State
NFS management programs [including programs for which the State
intends to seek funding under sections 319(h) and (i)]. This will
serve as a cataloging of existing tools and will help identify
the need to develop new and additional tools and approaches to NFS
control as part of State NFS Management Programs. Section 319
requires States to describe their NFS programs in both their Assess-
ment Report and State Management Program. This is duplicative, but
EPA will expect greater detail to be provided in the Management
Program.
Over the years, many States have developed highly successful and
innovative NPS control programs including low-interest loans to
farmers, assistance to landowners or landusers in targeted water-
sheds, statewide regulation of erosion from construction sites and
urban stormwater runoff, forest practice requirements and others.
-------
8
New programs are expected to go well beyond existing programs and
should build on and strengthen the solid successes developed by the
States over the years.
Public Notice and Opportunity for Public Comment - The^State must
provide public notice of the availability of the State's Assessment
Report for public review and provide an opportunity for public
comment prior to submittal to EPA.
Transmittal of Reports - States are encouraged to submit drafts
of their Assessment Reports to Regional NFS Coordinators prior lc
formal submission. Copies of final Assessment Reports submitted
as a part of State 305(b) Reports should be submitted to Regional
305(b) Coordinators. Three copies should be submitted to NFS
Coordinators.
If Assessment Reports are completed prior to submission of 1988
305(b) Reports, three copies of the Assessment Report should be
submitted to Regional NFS Coordinators. States should incorporate
their NFS Assessment information in their 1988 305(b) Reports which
are due by April 1, 1988.
At a minimum, States should use their 1988 State 30S(b) Reports to
identify the list of waters impacted by NFS pollution and the NFS
categories or sources contributing to this impact. The other two
Assessment items required by section 319 (process for identifying
BMPs and description of State/local NFS programs) may be included
in State 305(b) Reports as well but must be submitted no later
than August 4, 1988.
4. Criteria for Approval of State Assessment Reports
Following are the criteria that EPA will use in evaluating a State's
Assessment Report:
(A) Navigable waters impacted by nonpoint sources
[section 319(a)(l)(A)]
o Has available Statewide information regarding the State's
NFS problems been analyzed and summarized in the Assessment
Report including any available information developed pur-
suant to sections 208, 303(e), 304(f), 305(b), 314, and 320,
and NFS information prepared for America s Clean Waters,
The States' Nonpoint Source Assessment 1985. Association of
State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators?
6 Has the list of waters impacted or threatened by NFS pollution
and the pollution categories or sources contributing to
this impact been integrated with the State s 305(b) Report
consistent with the EPA Guidelines?
o Has the assessment basis (i.e., monitored or evaluated) for
reported waters been identified?
-------
o Have the specific waterbodies impacted or threatened by NFS
pollution and the NFS pollution categories or sources contri-
buting to this impact been identified and have such data
been provided in a compatible format for inclusion in the
305(b) Waterbody System data base (use of the actual Waterbody
computer system will be optional in FY 1988)7
o Has the list of waters impacted or threatened by NFS pollution
been reported on a watershed-by-watershed basis?
o Have interstate/international waters been considered?
o If all navigable waters have not been completely assessed,
does the State have a strategy and expeditious timetable
for improving the quality of its assessment?
(B) Categories of nonpoint sources impacting State waters
[section 319(a)(l)(B)]
o Has the State specifically identified the categories and
subcategories or sources of NFS pollution for each of the
impacted or threatened navigable waters identified above?
(C) Intergovernmental coordination and public participation for
identifying BMPs [section 319(a)(l)(C)]
o Were groups and agencies with water quality and resource
interests provided an opportunity to review proposed best
management practices for the categories and subcategories
of nonpoint sources?
(D) Identification of existing State and local NFS control programs
[section 319(a)(l)(D)J
o Has the State provided a comprehensive summary of all existing
State and local NFS control programs and explained how the
new assistance provided by section 319(h) and (i) will help
support its NFS programs?
o Has there been adequate consideration of the development of
the listings of programs with local, State and Federal agencies?
(E) Public notice and opportunity for public comment [section 319(a)(l)]
o Have other groups with water quality and resource interests
been actively involved in the process of defining the NFS
water quality problem areas, identifying the sources impacting
or threatening these waters, and identifying BMPs e.g., have
fish and wildlife, recreational, agricultural, forestry,
drinking water, and wetland protection agencies etc., partici-
pated in developing the Assessment?
o Has the State issued a public notice on the availability of
the State Assessment Report for public review and provided an
-------
10
opportunity for public comment prior to submitting the Report
to EPA?
Does the review process generally conform to 40 CFR 25 for
public participation? States have the flexibility to design
whatever type of public participation strategy they wish
including workshops, advisory groups and public hearings, but
the administration of the chosen activities should be in
accordance with the procedures outlined in 40 CFR 25.
-------
11
B. Development of State Management Programs
1. Introduction
State Management Programs should provide an overview of a State's
NFS programs as well as a summary of what the State intends to
accomplish in the next four fiscal years beginning after the date
of program submission. EPA trusts that development of State Manage-
ment Programs will help States move toward viable, long-range NFS
management programs.
State Management Programs should be submitted by the Governor of each
State, for that State or in combination with adjacent States, after
notice and opportunity for public comment. State Management Programs
should be submitted to the appropriate Regional NPS Coordinator by
August 4, 1988.
While the Assessment Report identifies the overall dimensions of
the State's NPS water quality problems, a State will probably find
it both useful and necessary to carve out a subset of these waters
in its State Management Program for concerted action on a watershed-
by-watershed basis over the next four years. Such targeting will
provide the greatest opportunity for achieving visible water quality
improvements in the short run. In addition, States should develop
Statewide program approaches to address NPS problems such as con-
struction erosion, urban stormwater runoff from developing areas,
forestry practices, or other types of NPS problems.
States .are encouraged to target or identify the sequence for
protecting their water resources based on a comparative evaluation
of the State's waters. The guiding principles in evaluating a State's
waters are to maximize environmental benefit by devoting resources
and efforts to water resources in a priority order that recognizes
the values of the waterbody in question, the benefits to be realized
from various control actions (including evidence of local public
interest and support), and the controllability of the problem(s).
States should consider the following factors in targeting NPS problem
areas:
o What waterbodies are most valuable from various perspectives--
aquatic habitat, recreation, and water supply for example?
o What waterbodies are subject to adverse effects from both
pollution and aquatic habitat destruction (wetlands), and can
be impacted by water programs?
o What tools are available to address the waterbodies identified?
o What areas are most likely to be improved through governmental
action?
o Which problems are most amenable to the available tools and controls?
-------
12
o What is the degree of public support (local or statewide) to
protect a particular aquatic resource?
o How willing are other governmental agencies to take steps to
use their tools and resources to help address the problem?
o Where would "combined actions" offer the greatest benefit
relative to the value of the aquatic resource?
States are encouraged to refer to an EPA Office of Water Regulations
and Standards' technical publication called Setting Priorities. The
Key to Nonpoint Source Pollution Control for more details on effective
NFS targeting approaches (US EPA. Office of Water Regulations and
Standards, Setting Priorities: The Key to Nonpoint Source Pollution
Control. July 1987). The NFS targeting strategy, as presented in
this document, complements the targeting concept in the State Clean
Water Strategy Guidance; more specifically, it is intended to present
successful State approaches to targeting NPS water pollution control
problems.
States should, where appropriate, supplement the funding of existing
NPS projects in order to demonstrate the benefits of NPS projects
within the four year program.
The State Management Program needs to be balanced between the priority
problems the State identifies and implementation of Statewide NPS
programs. Examples of Statewide NPS programs include Statewide
regulatiors for forestry, grazing, or construction erosion control,
or Statewide educational programs aimed at protecting water resources
from NPS impacts. Targeted water quality projects and Statewide
programs should be directed at either improving degraded water quality
or preven:ing NPS impacts in high quality waters.
2. State Management Program Requirements
State Maragement Programs shall include the following six categories
of infornation:
(A) best management practices and measures which will be used
to reduce pollutant loadings resulting from each category,
subcategory, or particular nonpoint source designated in the
State's Assessment Report, taking into account the impact of
the practice on ground-water quality.
(B) programs (including, as appropriate, nonregulatory or
regulatory programs for enforcement, technical assistance,
financial assistance, education, training, technology transfer,
and demonstration projects) to achieve implementation of the
best management practices designated under subparagraph (A).
(C) a schedule containing annual milestones for (i) utilization of
the program implementation methods identified in subpara-
graph (B), and (ii) implementation of the the best management
practices identified in subparagraph (A) by the categories,
-------
13
subcategories, or particular nonpoint sources designated in the
State's Assessment Report. Such schedule shall provide for
utilization of the best management practices at the earliest
practicable date.
(D) a certification by the attorney general of the State or States
(or the chief attorney of any State water pollution control
agency which has independent .legal counsel) that the laws of
the State or States, as the case may be, provide adequate
authority to implement such management program or, if there is
not adequate authority, a list of such additional authorities
as will be necessary to implement such management program and a
schedule and commitment by the State or States to seek such
additional authorities as expeditiously as practicable.
(Ł) sources of Federal and other assistance and funding [other than
assistance provided under subsections (h) and (i)] which will be
available in each of such fiscal years for supporting imple-
mentation of such practices and measures and the purposes for
which such assistance will be used in each of such fiscal years.
(F) the Federal financial assistance programs and Federal development
projects for which the State will review individual assistance
applications or development projects for their effect on water
quality pursuant to the procedures set forth in Executive Order
12372 as in effect on September 17, 1983, to determine whether
such assistance applications or development projects would be
consistent with the program prepared under this subsection; for
the purposes of this subparagraph, identification shall not
be limited to the assistance programs or development projects
subject to Executive Order 12372 but may include any programs
listed in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
which may have an effect on the purposes and objectives of the
State's nonpoint source pollution management program.
3. Explanation
As required by the Act, States should develop Management Programs
to the maximum extent practicable on a watershed-by-watershed basis.
State NFS Management Programs should focus geographically on NPS
priority areas identified through a comparative evaluation of the
State's waters. Management strategies should comprehensively address
the NPS problems in the watersheds targeted for implementation,
regardless of landownership (Federal/State/local/private). In
addition, States should develop Statewide program approaches to
address various types of nonpoint sources.
The Act requires six principal categories of information to be
included in State NPS Management Programs and each category as well
as other items are discussed below:
Best Management Practices (BMPs) - State programs must identify the
BMPs which will be used to reduce pollution from each of the categor-
ies or subcategories of NPS pollution, taking into account the
-------
14
impact of the proposed practices on ground-water quality.
States are required to consider the impact of best management
practices on ground water. This is due to the intimate hydrologic
relationship that often exists between surface and ground water,
and the possibility that measures taken to reduce contaminants in
surface water runoff may increase transport of these contaminants
to ground water.
The range of detail regarding BMPs in State submittals may vary
from lists of BMPs which are generally considered appropriate for
the various categories and subcategories of NFS pollution to detailed
watershed plans. However, grant applications which seek support
for specific demonstration watershed projects under sections 319
or 205(j)(5) should contain more specific information on the types
and amount of BMPs needed for particular projects (see section on
Demonstration Projects under Grant Application Requirements).
NFS Programs - States must identify the nonregulatory and regulatory
programs including enforcement, technical assistance, financial
assistance, education, training, technology transfer, demonstration
projects and monitoring/evaluation to assist in the development and
implementation of BMPs. The ]ead and cooperating agencies for
carrying out these programs should be identified and their responsi-
bilities clearly identified.
Section 319(h)(7) states that Federal funds from this section
may be used for financial assistance to individuals only to the ex-
tent that such assistance is related to the costs of "demonstration
projects." The Conference Report accompanying the Act (Report
99-1004) explains the limitations regarding "demonstration pro 1ects:"
States may use Federal funds authorized by the bill for
financial assistance to individuals only insofar as the
assistance is related to costs of implementing demonstra-
tion projects. Federal funds are not to be used as a
general subsidy or for general cost sharing to support
implementation of best management practices. However, a
State is not precluded from using or directing other
funds for cost sharing or other incentive programs if it
chooses. The term "demonstration projects" includes pro-
jects designed to educate individuals as to the use of
best management practices and to demonstrate their feasi-
bility and utility as well as research projects to estab-
lish the cost effectiveness of particular BMPs.
Schedule - State programs will include a schedule containing annual
milestones for the four year program. Milestones built into the four
year program will provide an opportunity to gauge effectiveness of
programs and to make needed mid-course corrections. Annual work
programs included in grant applications must include commitments to
meet the four year Management Program. Examples of milestones in-
clude: anticipated improvements in water quality, water use or achieve-
ment of water quality standards; numbers and types of BMPs implemented;
-------
15
reports completed; NPS-r-lated laws passed; and NFS programs established.
Certification of Adequacy of State Laws - The State must certify
that existing State laws are adequate to carry out the proposed pro-
gram or the Management Program must contain a stated intent to seek
additional needed authority. If additional legal authority is needed,
the schedule for seeking such authority should be adequately expeditious
to allow implementation within the four-year Management Program.
Funding Sources - The Management Program should identify sources of
Federal and other assistance and funding other than that provided
by sections 319(h) and (i) which will be used to carry out the
State's NPS Management Program in each of the four fiscal years.
Federal Consistency - State Management Programs should identify any
individual Federal financial assistance programs or Federal devel-
opment projects to be reviewed by the State for their consistency
with its proposed State NPS Management Program. According to the
Congressional Record on January 14, 1987, this requirement is based
on Executive Order 12372, as in effect on September 17, 19.83*, which
... replaces OMB Circular A-95 and establishes procedures by
which State authorities may comment upon applications for
Federal assistance and Federal development projects to assure
that the federally supported activities and projects are con-
sistent with State needs and objectives. This bill assures
that the provisions of the Executive order, as in effect on
September 17, 1983, will be applicable to the State's implemen-
tation of this review process, with respect to its nonpoint
source management program, regardless of any subsequent revisions
of the Executive order. The bill also allows States to designate
any Federal assistance program or development project listed
in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, rather
than just those programs and projects subject to the current
Executive Order 12372. The purpose of this provision is to
allow the States to review any Federal program or project
that the State determines needs to be reviewed for consistency
with its nonpoint management program. This provision builds
upon established procedures for State review of Federal
activities. It will provide the States with an important tool
to assure that proposed Federal assistance and development
projects are implemented in a manner which the State deems
consistent with its nonpoint source pollution management program.
Executive Order 12372 titled "intergovernmental Review of Federal
Programs" was Issued July 14, 1982. This Executive Order was
subsequently amended on April 8, 1983 by Executive Order 12416 also
titled "Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs." Thus, the
reference to the "Executive Order 12372, as in effect on September 17,
1983," includes the amendments added by Executive Order 12416.
-------
16
The Administrator is required to transmit to the Office of Management
and Budget and appropriate Federal agencies a list of the assistance
programs and development projects which each State has identified
for review pursuant to the procedures set forth in Executive Order
12372, as in effect on September 17, 1983. Beginning no later than
60 days thereafter each Federal agency is required to amend applicable
regulations so that individual assistance applications and projects
for the identified programs and development projects are submitted
for State review. In addition, the appropriate agencies and depart-
ments of the Federal Government are required to accomodate, according
to tha requirements and definitions of the Executive Order, concerns
thft State, may express about consistency of such applications or
projects with the State's NFS Management Program.
(Note; More detailed information on how to carry out the Federal
consistency provisions is currently being developed.)
Public Notice and Opportunity for Public Comment - States should
actively involve other groups with water quality and resource
interests in the development of State Management Programs. In
addition, the State shall provide a public notice on the availability
of the State's Management Program for public review and must provide
an opportunity for public comment prior to submittal to EPA. Also,
within ten days of receipt of a specific Management Program, the
appropriate EPA Regional Office will provide public notice that they
have received such Management Program.
4. Criteria for Approval of State Management Programs
Following are the criteria that EPA will use in evaluating a State's
Management Program:
(A) Identification of BMPs [section 319(b)(2)(A)]
o Are appropriate NPS BMPs identified for each of the
categories and subcategories of nonpoint sources identified
in the State's Assessment Report?
o Has the impact of these BMPs on ground-water quality
been considered?
(B) Identification of needed implementation programs
[section 319(b)(2)(B)]
o Are the implementation programs (i.e., education,
technical/financial assistance, enforcement, etc.) to be
used identified?
o Are the lead and cooperating agencies responsible for
the State's NPS programs identified and are their
responsibilities clearly identified?
o Are implementation programs developed on a watershed-by-
watershed basis, to the extent practicable (there is
-------
17
recognition that Statewide program approaches are needed
to address certain NFS problems)?
o If the NFS programs include financial assistance to
individuals (cost-sharing), are the Federal 319(h) costs
related only to supporting the costs of demonstration
projects, as required by section 319(h)(7)7
(C) Implementation milsstones [section 319(b)(2)(C)]
o Have milestones been scheduled during Una four year
program to allow for implementation, evaluation of program
effectiveness and any necessary mid-course corrections?
For example, have goals been established for individual
watersheds regarding how many BMPs will be implemented by
what date or what water quality improvements are expected,
or has a schedule been established for the development of
certa.ln NFS regulations?
(D) Certification of the attorney general of adequate State
authority ['section 319(b)(2)(D)]
o If a State's authorities are not adequate, is there a schedule
for obtaining adequate authority to support needed implementa-
tion within t.'ie timeframe of the four year section 319 program?
(E) Source; of Federal and other assistance and funding
I section 319(b)(2)(E)]
o Does the Management Program explain how State and local funds,
oth.ir related EPA programs [other than 319(h) and (i)], and
otht-.r Federal programs affecting NFS control will be integrated
and utilized as part of an overall State NFS Management Program
e.g., other EPA programs such as 314, 320, 117, etc. and other
Federal agency programs such as USDA's Conservation Reserve
Program?
(F) Consistency of Federal programs with State NFS requirements
[section 319(b)(2)(F)]
o Is the State's identification of Federal financial assistance
programs and Federal development projects to be reviewed
specific enough to allow EPA to identify the programs/projects
clearly to the appropriate Federal agency?
(G) Public notice and opportunity for public comment [section 319(b)(D]
o Have other groups with water quality and resource interests
been actively involved in the process of developing the State
Management Program "e.g., have fish and wildlife, recreational,
agricultural, forestry, drinking water and wetlands protection
agencies, etc., participated in developing the Management
Program?
-------
18
Has the State issued a public notice on the availability of
the State Management Program for public review and provided
an opportunity for public comment prior to submitting the
Report to EPA?
-------
19
C. Administrative and Other Provisions
1. Deadline for Approval/Partial Approval
The NFS Assessment Report and Management Program should be
submitted to the appropriate EPA Regional Office no later than
August 4, 1988. The Regional Administrator must either approve
or disapprove a State's Assessment Report or Management Program
not later than 180 days after the date of submittal. The Regional
Administrator oust approve the Assessment Report in its entirety
but may approve a portion of a Management Program. These items
may be approved separately or concurrently.
If the Regional Administrator does not disapprove an Assessment
Report, Management Program, or portion of a Management Program
in such 180 day period, such Assessment Report, Management
Program or portion of a Management Program shall be deemed
approved for the purposes of section 319.
2. Procedure for Disapproval
The Act provides that, after notice and opportunity for public
comment and consultation with appropriate Federal and State
agencies and other interested persons, the Regional Adminis-
trator may disapprove a State's Assessment Report and/or
Management Program. . Criteria for disapproval include:
(A) the proposed Assessment Report and Management Program
or any portion thereof does not meet the requirements
of subsections (a)(l) and (b)(2) of section 319, re-
spectively, or is not likely to satisfy, in whole or
in part, the goals and requirements of this Act;
(B) adequate authority does not exist, or adequate resources
are not available, to implement such program or portion;
(C) the schedule for implementing such program or portion
is not sufficiently expeditious; or
CD) the practices and measures proposed in such program
or portion are not adequate to reduce the level of
pollution in navigable waters in the State resulting
from nonpoint sources and to improve the quality of
navigable waters in the State.
If any.such determinations are made, the Regional Administrator
shall then, within 180 days of the receipt of the proposed
Assessment or Program, notify the State of any revisions or
modifications necessary to obtain approval. The State shall
thereupon have an additional three months to submit its revised
Assessment or Management Program and the Regional Administrator
shall approve or disapprove such revised submittals within
three months of receipt
-------
20
3. Which Agency is to Serve as the Lead for the 319 Program
States should identify one State agency to serve as the lead
agency for the section 319 program. Given the diversity of
nonpoint pollution sources, EPA believes that State water
quality agencies are generally in the best position to carry
out the overall NFS assessment and program development require-
ments of section 319. However, a Governor, in consultation
with the appropriate EPA Regional Administrator, may designate
an agency other than the State water quality agency to serve
as the lead in developing the State's NPS program. In such
cases, the proposed agency must have the capability to develop
both a comprehensive NPS water quality assessment and NPS
management program. In any case, the Governor s designee will
ultimately be the recipient of section 205(j)(S) or 319 NPS grants.
As a practical matter, once a State's overall NPS program is
approved by the EPA Regional Administrator, numerous agencies
will likely be involved in the actual implementation of specific
NPS water pollution control programs. For example, 'State water
quality, natural resources, soil conservation, drinking water
and other agencies, as well as Federal, local and areawide
agencies will be involved. We expect the lead NPS agency to
submit consolidated section 205(j)(5) or 319 grants which the
lead State NPS agency will then allocate as appropriate, probably
through State memoranda of understanding, among its implementing
agencies. ......
4. Water Quality Management Plan Uvdates
States may incorporate their NPS Assessment and Management
Programs into their water quality management (WQM) plan or
areawide waste treatment management plan developed and updated
in accordance with the provisions of section 205(j), 208, and
303 of the Act, 40 CFR Part 130 (the Water Quality Planning and
Management regulation), and State requirements. The NPS Assess-
ment and Management Program may be included in the State s WQM
Plan or referenced as part of the WQM plan if contained in
separate documents.
5. States Electing Not to Submit Assessment Reports
If a Governor of a State elects not to submit an Assessment
Report by the August 4, 1988 deadline, the Regional Administrator
shall, within 30 months after the date of enactment of the
amendments establishing section 319, prepare for such State a
Report which makes the identifications that are required, by
law and the guidance, for the State Assessment Report. Upon
completion of this requirement and providing notice and oppor-
tunity to comment, EPA will report to Congress on this action.
-------
21
6. Local Agency Submitted of Management Program
If a State elects not to submit a Management Program or if the
Regional Administrator does not approve such a Management Program,
a local public agency or organization which has expertise in,
and authority to control, NPS pollution may, with State approval,
submit a Management Program. Such agency or organization must
be of "sufficient geographic size" as determined by the Regional
Administrator and may request technical assistance from EPA in
the development of such Management Program.
After development of such Management Program, such agency or
organization shall submit the Management Program through the State
to the appropriate Regional Administrator. If the program is
approved, such agency or organization shall be eligible to receive
financial assistance under section 319(h) for implementation of
the Management Program. Such financial assistance shall be subject
to the same terms and conditions as assistance provided to a State
under section 319(h), including that both an Assessment Report and
Management Program must be completed prior to award of _a grant
under section 319(h).
7. Annual Reports by States and Reports to Congress
(A) Annual State Reports Required - Starting November 1, 1987,
and each September 1 thereafter, each State will report to
its respective EPA Regional Office, concerning:
(1) the amount, purpose and utilization of grants received
by the State under subsections 319(h) and (i), 205(j)(5),
and 201(g)(l); and funds used under 603(c)(2);
(2) its progress in meeting milestones detailed in its
Management Program; and
(3) to the extent that appropriate information is available,
reductions in nonpoint. source pollutant loading and im-
provements in water quality for those waters reported in
the State's Assessment Report.
The Annual Reports will be consolidated by the Regions and
forwarded to EPA Headquarters no later fhan November 20 in
1987 and in the following years by September 20.
The first Annual Report due November 1, 1987 should consist
of a letter from the State regarding the status of its NPS
program. For example, the letter should note when and if
the State expects to submit an Assessment Report and Manage-
ment Program, and the status of NPS activities supported
with 205(j)(5) funds.
-------
22
(B) EPA Annual Report Required - The Administrator will
consolidate, edit and add to State and Regional reports
and submit to Congress his report by January 1, 1988, and
each January 1 thereafter, on the activities and programs
implemented under section 319 and the progress made in
reducing NFS water pollution and improving the quality of
affected waters.
(C) Final Report - The Administrator's report of January 1,
1990 is referred to in the Act as the "Final Report."
In this report the Congress is asking for an evaluation of
the activities carried out to that date under section 319.
[The filing of the 1989-90 "Final Report" does not change
the requirement for subsequent annual reports in the manner
and fashion of the '87-'88 reports called for by paragraphs
(A) and (B), above.]
Specifically, States will report the following information
in the September 1, 1989 submittal, in addition to that
information asked for under subparagraph (A) a&ove:
(1) the management programs implemented by the State by
types and amount of affected waters, categories and
subcategories of nonpoint sources, and types of best
management practices being implemented;
(2) the experiences of the State in adhering to schedules
and implementing best management practices;
(3) what further actions need to be taken to attain and
maintain in NFS targeted waters (i) applicable water
quality standards, and (ii) the goals and require-
ments of the Act;
(4) recommendations concerning needed future programs
(including enforcement programs) for controlling
pollution from nonpoint sources; and
(5) programs and activities of departments, agencies and
instrumentalities of the United States which are
inconsistent with the State's Management Program and
recommended modifications so that such activities and
programs would become consistent with and assist the
States in implementation of their Management Program.
[Note: Separate technical information is being developed to
provide a format for preparation of the State Annual Reports
and the Final Report. This format would allow for reporting
of progress in specific NFS projects and reductions in NFS
loadings and related water quality improvements.]
-------
23
8. Cooperation Requirement
States should seek the cooperative involvement of regional
planning agencies, local governments, and other public and
private agencies and organizations in the development of their
Assessment Report and Management Program. Section 319(c)(l)
specifically requires the Assessment Report and Management
Program
...be developed in cooperation with local, substate,
regional, and interstate entities which are actively
planning for the implementation of nonpoint source
pollution controls and have either been certified by
the Administrator in accordance with section 208, have
worked jointly with the State on water quality manage-
ment planning under section 205(j), or have been desig-
nated by the State legislative body or Governor as
water quality management planning agencies for their
. geographic areas.
In addition, section 319(b)(3) requires States to the maximum
extent practicable to involve local public and private agencies
and organizations which have expertise in control of NPS pollu-
tion in the development and implementation of State Management
Programs.
9. Interstate Management Conference
If waters in a State are impaired by NPS pollution from another
State, the State may petition the Regional Administrator to
convene, and he shall convene, a conference of the affected
States. If the Regional Administrator finds that waters in a
State are not meeting standards because of NPS pollution origin-
ating in another State, EPA shall notify such State(s). The
Regional Administrator may, whether or not petitioned to do
so, convene a management conference between such States not
later than 180 days after giving notification. The purpose of
such conference shall be to develop an agreement to control
such interstate NPS pollution.
To the extent that States reach agreement through such a
conference, the Management Programs of the States that are
parties to the agreement and contribute the NPS pollution will
be revised to reflect such agreement.
10. Indian Tribes
Section 518(f) establishes that not more than one-third of one
percent of the amount appropriated for any fiscal year under
section 319 may be used to make grants to Indian tribes. Indian
tribes must meet the requirements of section 319(h) as well as
meet the three criteria in section 518(e) of the Act in order
to receive such grants.
-------
24
II. Technical Assistance
Upon request of a State or a local public agency or organization,
EPA may provide technical assistance in carrying out the pro-
visions of section 319. This technical assistance will be
provided (to the extent resources are available) by EPA-Regional
NPS staff in most instances with backup assistance from EPA
Headquarters' NPS staff.
Pursuant to section 319(e), EPA will collect and make available
through publications and other means information rsgarding
management practices and implementation methods. For example,
information will be developed on the costs and relative effi-
ciencies of best management practices for reducing NPS pollution,
and available data concerning the impact of best management
practices on water quality.
Major technical assistance activities planned for FY 1988 include:
providing assistance to the States in the development of Assess-
ment Reports and Management Programs; issuing a NPS "monitoring.
and evaluation guide; providing information on the effectiveness
and costs of best management practices; completing a stream
methodology started under the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program
for analyzing water quality effects of urban runoff; and
developing a methodology for incorporating nonpoint sources
into wasteload allocations.
-------
25
III, GRANT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
Federal financial support is authorized from six new sections established
by the WQA to support activities related to NFS control. While each of
these funding sources is discussed separately below, .and will generally
require a separate grant application, States are encouraged to develop
coordinated work programs using these various funding sources. Grant
funding under each of these sections is subject to the availability of
appropriations.
A. Section 205(j)(5)
This section of the Act provides a set-aside of up to 1% of each
State's construction grant allotment or a minimum of $100,000 to
be used for developing a State's NFS Assessment Report and Management
Program (program development) and for implementing an approved
Management Program (implementation).
Grant Application Requirements - To use these funds, States need to
prepare a grant application which includes:
1. an EPA Form 5700-33 properly completed;
2. an EPA Form 5700-48 properly completed;
3. a certification on the grant application that the requirements
of E.O. 12372 have been met;
4. a brief narrative statement explaining how the funds will be
used and how use of these funds will be coordinated with other
funds devoted to NFS activities;
5. a section-by-section description of each task, including
outputs, to be funded;
6. one table for evaluation and other purposes, listing:
(a) each of the tasks,
(b) the outputs to be accomplished, by each task,
(c) funding for each task,
(d) the number of person-years devoted to each task, and
(e) a schedule of when outputs are to be completed; and
7. if needed, a statement assuring that the State will maintain
during the grant period its average annual level of expendi-
tures for NFS activities for FY 1985 and FY 1986 and esta-
blishing such an expenditure level (see separate discussion
of maintenance of effort).
These requirements are in accordance with the Administrator's
Policy on Performance Based Assistance dated May 31, 1985.
The grant application/work program must be adequately integrated
and coordinated with other water quality management activities
-------
26
supported under CWA sections 106, 117, 201(g)(l), non-CMAG 205(g),
205(j)(l), 314, 319(h) and (i), 320, 603(c)(2), 604(b), and with
State matching or maintenance-of-effort funds all of which may be
contributing input to the NFS Assessment and Management Program.
In addition, grant applications must also be integrated and coordi-
nated with ground-water and wetlands activities.
Match - 205(j)(5) funds are reserved "for the purpose of carrying
out section 319," i.e., to develop a State's NFS Assessment Report
and Management Program and to implement an approved Management
Program. The Senate Report 99-50 issued on May 14, 1985, states
that section 205(j)(5) grants must meet the Federal/non-Federal
share requirements. Section 319(h)(3) indicates that the Federal
share "of the cost incurred by the State in implementing such man-
agement program" (emphasis added) shall be matched. Therefore, no
match is required for 205(j)(5) funds which are used to develop a
State's NPS Assessment and Mangagement Program. However, 205(j)(5)
grant funds used for implementation of NFS activities identified in
the State's approved NPS Management Program must be matched. The
Federal share for such implementation activities shall not exceed
60%.
Use of 205(1")(5) Funds and Award Mechanisms - Section 205(j)(5)
funds may not be awarded for NPS implementation activities until a
State's NPS Assessment Report and Management Program are approved.
After such approval, section 205(j)(5) funds may be used for imple-
menting approved State NPS Management Programs.
Section 205(j)(5) funds used for program development (developing
Assessment Reports and Management Programs) are to be awarded under
205(j)(5). Section 205(j)(5) funds used for implementing Management
Programs will be awarded under 319(h). Given these different award
mechanisms, EPA Regions will award separate grants for 205(j)(5)
funds used for either of these two purposes i.e., States must submit
two separate grant applications. Section 205(j)(5) funds used for
implementation activities must also meet other requirements (i.e.,
match, maintenance of effort, etc.) which are discussed below in
the section on "Other Restrictions and Requirements.
Implementation Activities - In addressing the subject of implementa-
tion, the Act calls for:
...an identification of programs (including, as appropri-
ate, nonregulatory or regulatory programs for enforcement,
technical assistance, financial assistance, education,
training, technology transfer, and demonstration projects)
to achieve implementation of best management practices...
Such activities, when included in a State's Management Program,
shall be considered eligible implementation activities for funding
under sections 205(j)(5) and 319(h). In addition, design of specific
best management practices (BMPs) and the provision of financial
assistance to individuals for the physical installation of BMPs
is eligible in the case of "demonstrations. Also, financial
-------
27
assistance provided to municipalities and other public entities
is an eligible implementation activity.
Other Restrictions and Requirements - Generally, the restrictions
and requirements of 319(h) in addition to match (e.g., the priority
considerations, maintenance of effort, restrictions on financial
assistance to individuals, availability for obligation, requirement
for annual reports,•limitation on administrative costs and satis-
factory progress) apply to section 205(j)(5) funds used to support
implementation activities. When section 205(j)(5) grant funds
are used for program development, the restrictions and requirements
of section 319(h) do not apply. For a more detailed discussion of
these restrictions and requirements, please see the following
section B of this guidance.
Obligation of 205(1K5) Funds - Section 205(j)(5) funds used for
program development may be obligated in the year in which they are
appropriated as well as in the following year, pursuant to section
205(d). The availability for obligation provision of section
319(h)(6) applies to section 319(h) as well as section 205
-------
28
State Not Using 205C1K5) Funds for NFS Control - States do not have to
use the 205(j)(5) reserve for their NFS programs, although we encourage
them to do so. If. a State chooses not to use a minimum of $100,000
of its reserve for NFS purposes, the difference between what is actually
used for NFS purposes and $100,000 will be realloted to other States
as construction grant funds, pursuant to 40 CFR 35.155. Reserves
beyond the first $100,000 may be used for "other purposes under Title II
of the Act" i.e., for construction of treatment works, for water quality
management planning activities, etc. In summary, it would be in the
interest of most States to use a minimum of $100,OOC of their 205(j]/(5)
reserve for developing and/or implementing their NFS Program.
B. Section 319 (h)
Grants under section 319(h) are to be used, to implement State NFS
Management Programs. A discussion of eligible implementation acti-
vities is provided under the previous section of the guidance
addressing 205(j)(5) grants.
Section 319Ch)(2) provides that grant applications for section 319(h)
funds should include:
... an identification and description of the best management
practices and measures which the State proposes to assist.
encourage, or require in such year with the Federal assistance
to be provided under the grant, (emphasis added)
Authorizations - Congress has authorized $70 million for FY 1988,
$100 million each for FY 1989 and FY 1990, and $130 million for FY
1991 for section 319(h); except that for each of such fiscal years
not to excesd $7,500,000 may be made available to carry out section
319(i). No one State is to receive more than 15% of the funds appro-
priated under section 319(h) in any given year or more than $150,000
under section 319(i). These funds will not be available until Congress
appropriates them.
Allocation of Funds - Funds appropriated for 319(h) would be
awarded to those States which have approved NFS Assessments and
Management Programs and have submitted specific grant applications.
-NOTE-
Following is our basic concept for allocating available 319(h) funds.
Futher guidance on the allocation will be developed once appropriated
funding levels are known.
Allocation Concept - EPA's concept for establishing guidance for
allocating such funds is to balance basic State NFS program needs
with award of priority grants for the NFS activities listed below.
Completion and approval of a State Clean Water Strategy is a primary
consideration in awarding funds for priority NFS activities.
-------
29
Preference in the award of grant funds for priority NFS activities
will be given to programs which:
1. control particularly difficult or serious nonpoint source
pollution problems, including, but not limited to, problems
resulting from mining activities;
2. implement innovative methods or practices for controlling
nonpoint sources of pollution, including regulatory (e.g.,
enforcement) programs where the Administrator deems appropriate;
3. control interstate nonpoint source pollution problems;
4. carry out ground-water quality protection activities which the
Administrator determines are part of a comprehensive nonpoint
source pollution control program, including research, planning,
ground-water'assessments, demonstration programs, enforcement,
technical assistance, education, and training to protect ground
water from nonpoint sources of pollution;
5. address nationally significant, high-risk NFS problems;
6. address surface/ground-water (cross-media) issues;
7. integrate Federal, State and local programs;
8. provide for monitoring/evaluation of program effectiveness;
9. comprehensively integrate CWA requirements; or
10. demonstrate a long-term commitment to the building of
institutions necessary for effective NFS management and the
continuation of such institutions beyond the authorization
period.
Maintenance of Effort - A grantee who applies for a 319(h) grant
(and/or a 205(j)(5) grant to support implementation activities)
must meet the maintenance-of-effort (MOE) requirement of 319(h)(9)
by establishing and maintaining its aggregate annual level of State
NFS pollution control expenditures for improving water quality at the
average level of such expenditures in FY 1985 and 1986. States should
establish their FY 1985 and 1986 level and annual levels based on
expenditures by the primary State agency (or agencies) responsible
for the State's NFS pollution control activities.
This means that:
o A State must maintain an annual level of expenditures on NFS
activities equal to the average of its FY 1985 and 1986 NFS
expenditures i.e., its MOE base level.
o The State's MOE base level should include sxpenditures only from
non-Federal sources; Federal funds should not be included in
calculating the MOE base level.
-------
30
o Calculation of expenditures is based on activities of the primary
State NFS agency (or agencies) responsible for the State's NFS
pollution control activities, not on what might be termed related
activities of other State agencies with primary missions other
than NFS control. For example, if the State water quality agency
and agricultural agency both have specific NFS water quality control
programs, these should be counted in the MOE. State soil conservation
programs having water quality improvement or maintenance as a primary
objective will be included in a State's MOE.
o The MOE base level or annual level cannot include the MOE or matching
expenditures for other Federal programs and in particular sections
106, 319, 205(j)(5), 314, and 117.
o Determination of whether the State expenditures meet the MOE level
for purposes of awarding a section 319(h) grant will be based on
the grantee expenditures projected in the grant application. (The
State will report whether it has met its MOE requirements in its
final Financial Status Report at the end of the budget, year.)
Grant Application Requirements - Once the NFS Assessment and Management
Program have been approved, States may develop grant applications/work
programs for 319(h), pending appropriation of such funds. States
should prepare 319(h) grant applications based on the funding targets
negotiated with the appropriate Region and in accordance with the
requirements for section 205(j)(5) grant applications listed above.
Demonstration Projects - See discussion under section A above for
implementation plan requirements in the work program/grant application
for demonstration projects.
Match - Section 319(h) grants are for the purpose of assisting the
State to implement its approved NFS Management Program and require a
non-Federal match. Section 205(j)(5) funds used for implementing a
State's approved NFS Management Program are awarded under section
319(h) and also require a non-Federal match. The Federal share of
such grants shall not exceed 60%.
The non-Federal share of 319(h) as well as 205(j)(5) grants must be
provided from non-Federal sources. The Act lists a number of activi-
ties which may be conducted in the implementation of the State s NFS
Management Program:
...including, as appropriate, nonregulatory or regulatory
programs for enforcement, technical assistance, financial
assistance, education, training, technology transfer, and
demonstration projects...
Generally, non-Federal funds used to support any of the above activities
may be used as non-Federal match under section 319. However, NFS funds
that are used to match or to satisfy MOE requirements for 106, 117,
or other Federal grant programs may not be used to match 319(h) or
205(j)(5) grants (i.e., double counting is not allowed). None of
the funds counted as non-Federal match may be used for administrative
-------
31
purposes under section 319(h)(12) if 10% of the grant amount is used
for those purposes, except that costs of implementing enforcement
and regulatory activities, education, training, technical assistance,
demonstration projects, and technology transfer programs shall not
be subject to this limitation.
State and local funds used for cost sharing and the portion of such
programs paid by the landowner/land manager may be used as match only
to the extent such cost sharing is used for demonstration projects as
provided in section 319(h)(7). This is because cost sharing except
in the case of demonstration projects is an ineligible activity under
section 319 and States may not use expenditures for ineligible activities
to match grant funds. This restriction also applies to section 205(j)(5)
funds used to implement NFS Management Programs. Thus, State and local
cost sharing funds are considered acceptable match for section 319 and
205(j)(5) only where such assistance is related to the costs of NFS
demonstration projects. We anticipate that many States will be conduct-
ing NFS demonstration projects where they would use their State cost
share funds as match.
Availability for Obligation - Section 319(h) funds and section 205(j)(5)
funds used for implementation granted to a State in any fiscal year
will remain available for obligation by the State for that fiscal year
(the year in which appropriated). If the State does not use its
grant funds in that year, the Regional Administrator may deobligate
the remaining funds and use them for grants to other States in the
next fiscal year or may renegotiate with the State the use and/or
schedule for use of the awarded funds. Section 205(j)(5) funds used
for program development may be obligated in the following year.
Satisfactory Progress - No subsequent 319(h) grant [or 205(j)(5) funds
used for implementation] shall be awarded unless the State has demon-
strated satisfactory progress in meeting the schedule set out in
the approved NFS Management Program. Legitimate delays may result
from such factors as the time required to locate and hire the needed
mix of experienced and trained personnel for the NFS program. Given
the evolving nature of our understanding of NFS problems and appro-
priate management approaches, EPA Regions will need to exercise dis-
cretion in evaluating satisfactory progress and may address other
concerns than just whether the schedule for the NFS Management Program
has been met.
Administrative Costs - Administrative costs in the form of salaries,
overhead or indirect costs for services provided and charged against
activities and programs carried out under the grant shall not ex-
ceed 10% of the amount of the grant in each year. The costs of imple-
menting enforcement and regulatory activities, education, training,
technical assistance, demonstration projects, and technology transfer
programs shall not be subject to this limitation.
-------
32
C. Section 319(1)
Grants under section 319(1) are for the purposes of carrying out
ground-water quality protection activities which EPA determines will
advance the State toward implementation of a comprehensive NFS' pollution
control program. Such activities may include, but need not be limited
to, research, planning, ground-water assessments, demonstration pro-
grams, enforcement, technical assistance, education and training to
protect the quality of ground water and to prevent contamination of
ground water from nonpoint sources of pollution. Administration of
section 319(i) grants will be carried out by EPA's Office of Ground-
Water Protection under guidance to be provided.
D. Section 201(g)(l)
This section, as amended, allows NPS control efforts to be financed
through the Governor's 20% discretionary set-aside of construction
grants funds. These are Title II funds that may be made available
for any purpose for which a grant may be made under sections 319(h)
and (i). NPS activities funded under this section must meet the
requirements for section 319, particularly 319(h) and (i).
(Note:' EPA will develop additional information on the use of the
Governor's 20% discretionary set-aside for NPS implementation.)
E. Section 603(c)(2)
The WQA adds a new Title VI providing for Federal capitalization
grants to States for State revolving funds to be used for loans,
primarily for municipal waste treatment. However, these loans may
also be made for the implementation of a NPS Management Program
established under section 319 and development and implementation of
a conservation and management plan (for bays or estuaries) under
section 320, if certain requirements are met under section 603 and
Office of Municipal Pollution Control guidance.
State revolving fund loans may provide a source for funding of programs
or projects to control NPS pollution. Projects must be in accordance
with a State's approved NPS Management Program. Favorable repayment
schedules and interest rates are to be set by the State to ensure
the accomplishment of the public purposes involved while protecting
the integrity of the State's loan fund. Use of these funds is at
the discretion of the State once the program satisfies section 602
and Office of Municipal Pollution Control guidance.
(Note; EPA.will develop additional information on the use of the
State Revolving Fund for NPS implementation.)
-------
33
F. Section 604(b)
Beginning in FY 1989, States must reserve each year 1% of their
Title VI allotments or $100S000, whichever is greater, to carry
out planning under 205(j) and 303(e). Since NFS planning activities
are eligible for funding under 205(j), the 604(b) reserve is an
additional source of funding for NFS activity.
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
Definition of Navigable Waters and Waters of the U.S.*
Navigable Waters
,.. The term "navigable waters" means the waters of the United
States, including the territorial seas.
Source: Federal Water Pollution Control Act as Amended by the Water
Quality Act of 1987
Waters of the U.S.
Waters of the United States or waters of the U.S. means:
(a) All waters which are currently used, were used in the past, or
may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce,
including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the
tide;
(b) All interstate waters, including interstate "wetlands;"
(c) All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams
(including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, "wetlands,"
sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural
ponds the use, degradation, or destruction of which would affect or
could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such
waters:
(1) Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers
for recreational or other purposes;
(2) From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in
interstate or foreign commerce; or
(3) Which are used or could be used for industrial purposes by
industries in interstate commerce;
(d) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the
United States under this definition;
(e) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a) through (d) of
this definition;
(f) The territorial sea; and
(g) "Wetlands" adjacent to waters (other than waters that are
themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (a) through (f) of
this definition...
Wetlands means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface
or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and
that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands
generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas...
*Source: 40 CFR 122.2
-------
APPENDIX B
Major Nonpoint Source (NFS) Pollution Categories and Subcategories*
1 NONPOINT SOURCES
10 Agriculture
11: Non-irrigated crop production
12: Irrigated crop production
13: Specialty crop production (e.g.,
truck farming and orchards)
14: Pasture land
15: Range land
16: Feedlots - all types
17: Aquaculture
18: Animal holding/management areas
20 Silviculture
21: Harvesting, reforestation,
residue management
22: Forest management
23: Road construction/maintenance
30 Construction
31: Highway/road/bridge
32: Land development
40 Urban Runoff
41: Storm sewers (source control)
42: Combined sewers (source control)
43: Surface runoff
70
80
Hvdrologic/Habitat Modification
71: Channelization
72: Dredging
Dam construction
Flow regulation/modification
Bridge construction
Removal of riparian vegetation
Streambank modification/
destabilization
73:
74:
75:
76:
77:
Other
81: Atmospheric deposition
82: Waste storage/storage tank
leaks
83: Highway maintenance and
runoff
84: Spills
85: In-place contaminants
86: Natural
90 Source unknown
50 Resource Extraction/Exploration/Development
Sir Surface mining
52: Subsurface mining
53: Placer mining
54: Dredge mining
55: Petroleum activities
56: Mill tailings
57: Mine tailings
60 Land Disposal (Runoff/Leachate From Permitted Areas)
61: Sludga
62: Wastcwater
63: Landfills
64: Industrial land treatment
65: On-site wastewater systems (septic tanks, etc.)
66: Hazardous waste
*Source: US EPA, guidelines for the Preparation of the 1988 State
er Quality Assessment f305fb) Report), April 1, 1987, p. 19.
-------
Appendix C
NFS Provisions in the Water Quality Act of 1967
Subject
Section 319
Creates ne*
§ 319 on
NPS Manage-
ment Programs
Contents
of State
Assessment
SKI'. 318. MA.SAUt.MC.VT Of NONPOINT SOCRCXS Of POLLUTION
^ m
ju. NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT
"'a> STATE AanmnNT .-
U> CONTENTS.— The Gevtraer of tach Suu ihall
nonet and opportunity for public comaSpreSJe 23 iuhimt
to tht Administrator fo "d submit
.. of tiu« Act;
ideotiHM tboM cat*fonw and
ncnpouit soureta or. whTr*
nonpomt sourcw which add
tht •«*•»"• 'w
m amounta which conthbut* to such
or
wtt4n within tht Suu
5?
or
lubcaunri
datchban the procaw. including inttrtov»rnm«nt*l
coordinmuea and public pattieipationTfor idl«SS bait
manaftmant pracncaa and mta*um to control iŁh St*
e«ory and subcatatpry of nonpoint soureaa M?
approprtatt. particular nonpoint aourcaa idantifi»d
•ubpancraph (Bi and to raSuca. Solff J2SS? a
pract,cabla. tha laval of pollution raaultinffroS TVuch fat
«f ory. lubcaufory. or sourca: and
"(D) idMtifiaa and daacribaa Suu and local profraaa for
controUmf soUuuon a^fad from nonooint-aouTeilo7and
uaprovinf tŁa quality of. Mch such ponioa of tha navinbU
waura, ladudiBf but not Umiud to thoaa profraaa which
«r« raeatvuf Fad«rml aaauunc* und« suba^ou (hTand
used to
prepart ' >
State
Assessment
Report
(2) INTOUCATION van IN PUPAXATION.—la drrtlopinc tAa
rapoR raquirad by thia aaction, th« Suu (A) may raly aeon
mformatioB developed pumunt to aactiona 208, 303(a), 304(f).
30&Vb), and 314, and other information aa appropriau, and (B)
may utUin appropriau alamanta of tha waata traatmant
manacamant plaaa davalopad punuaat to aactiona 2080)) and
303, to the azuat such alamaaa are Tirtm with and fulfill
tha rtqvurtmanta of thia aactioa.
-------
-2-
Subject
Contents
of State
Management
Programs"
"(b> STATX MANAGCMC^T PXOGEAMJ.—
"(1) IN GINMUL.—The Governor of each State, for that State
or in combination with adjactnt Statee, ihail, after notice and
opportunity for public comment, prepare and submit to the
Administrator for approval a management program which such
State proposes to implement in the first four fiscal yean begin-
ninf after the dat« of submiaaion of such management program
for controlling pollution added from nonpoint SOUTCM to the
navifable waten within the SUM and improving the quality of
such waters.
"(2) Sucmc cowropn.—Each management program pro*
posed for implementation under thia subsection •hall include
each of the following:
"(A) Aa identification 'of the beet management practices
and measures which will be undertaken to reduce pollutant
loadings resulting from each category, -subcatagory, or
particular nonpoint source designated under paragraph
(1XB), taking into account the impact of the practice on
ground water quality.
"(B) An identification of program* (including, as appro*
priate. nonreguiatory or regulatory programs for eaxoree*
ment. technical assistance, financial aesinrsnre. education.
training, technology transfer, and demoaatration projects)
to achieve- implementatioa of the beet management prac-
tices by the categories, subcategohea. and particular
nonpoint soureee designated under subparagraph (A).
"(O A schedule containing annual milestones for (i) utili-
zation of the program implementatioa method* identified
in subparagraph (B), and (ii) implementation of the beet
management practices identified in subparagraph (A) by
the categories, subcategohea. or particular nonpoint sources
designated under paragraph (1XB). Such schedule shall pro-
vide for utilization of the best management practices at the
earliest practicable date.
"(0) A certification of the attorney general of the State or
Statee tor the chief attorney of any State water pollution
control agency which has independent legal counsel) that
the laws of the State or Statee, ae the case may be, provide
adequate authority to implement such management pro-
gram or, if there is not such adequate authority, a list of
such additional authorities ae will be necessary to
implement such management program. A schedule and
commitment by the State or Statee to seek such additional
authorities as expeditiously at practicable.
"(E) Soureee or Federal and other assistance and fundinc
(other than assistance provided under subsections (h) and
(i)» which will be available in each of sueh fiscal yeen for
supporting implementation of such practical and measures
and the purposes for which such aseistance will be used in
each of such fiscal yean.
-------
-3-
Subject
Contents
of State
Management
Programs
(continued)
Other require-
ments for State
Assessment/Man-
agement Programs
"(F> An identification of Federal financial assistance pro-
frtmi and Federal development projects for which the
tat* wil] review individual assistance applications or
development projects for their effect on waur quality
pursuant to the procedures set forth in Executive Order
12372 as in effect on September 17, 1983, to determine
whether such assisunct applications or development
projects would be consistent with the program prepared
under this subsection; for the purposes of this subpara-
graph, identification shall not be limited to the assistance
programs or development projects subject to Executive
Order 12372 but may include any programs listad in the
most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance which
may have an effect on the purposes and objectives of the
State's nen point source pollution management program.
Use of
local and
private
experts
"(3) UTILIZATION or LOCAL AND PRIVATS otram.—In develop-
ing anJ implementing a management program under this
subsection, a State shall, to the maximum extent practicable,
involve local public and private agencies and organizations
which have expertise in control of nonpoint sources of pollution.
Emphasis on
watershed-
by-watershed
basis
"(4) DCVCLUFMCNT ON WATSftSHEO BASIS.—A State shall, to the
maximum extent practicable, develop and implement a manage-
ment program under this subsection on a watorshed-by>water«
shed basis within such State.
Cooperation
Requ i rement
"1C) AOMINISTKATIVI PROVISION*—
"(1) CoortftATiON K«unr*i.vT - Any report required by
subsection tai and any management program and report re-
quired by subsection . or have been designated by the State
legislative body or Governor as water quality manacemeat
planning agencies for their geographic areas.
Time frame for
State submittal
of Report/
Management
Program
"(2) TIMS rauoo ro> tvaanssaoN or loom AN» HAKAOS>
MINT raecRAMa.—Each report cad management program shall
bo submitted to the Administrator during the If-month ported
besjlnnincmthedateeftheeoactaMetofthMr
-------
.4.
Subjtct
Time frame
for EPA
approval of
State Reports/
Management
Programs
"fd) AmovAt o> DttAmovAL or Rooer* ANB MANAOI
PlOGKAMS.—
"(1) DXAOUKB.—Subject to paragraph (2). no* later than 180
days after the data of submission to the Atfjninittnitor of aay
report or managsment program under this section (other **wi
subsections (h), (i). and (k)), the Adminiatrator shall either
approve or disapprove such report or management program, as
the ease may be. The Administrator may approve a portion of a
management program under thia subsection. If the Adminis-
trator doe* not diaapprove a report. maAafemeat program, or
portion of a management program in such l SO-day penod. such
report, maaageraent Brogram. or portion shall be deemed ap-
proved for purposes of this section.
Proctdure for
EPA disapproval
and criteria
for disapproval
"(2) PaocBouu rot ottAmovAi.—If. after notieo and oppor-
tunity for public comment and consultation with appropriate
Federal and State agencies and other interested persons, the
Adminiatrator determines that—
"(A) the proposed management program or aay portion
thereof does not meet the requirements of subsection (bX2)
of thia section or is not likely to sctiafy. in whole or in part.
the goals and requirement* of tail Act;
"(B) adequate authority doss not exist, or adequate re*
source* an aot available, to implement such program or
portion;
"(C) the schedule for implementing such program or
portion is not sufficiently expeditious; or
"(D) the practices and measures proposed in such pro-
gram or portion are not adequate to reduce the level of
pollution in navigable waters ia the State resulting from
nonpoint sources and to improve the quality of navigable
waters in the State:
the Adminiatrator shall within 6 months of the receipt of the
proposed program notify the State of aay revisions or modifica-
tions necessary to obtain approval. The State shall thereupon
have an additional 3 months to submit its revised management
program and the Administrator shall approve or diaapprove
such revised program within three months of receipt
What if
Statt falls
to submit
an Assessment
Report?
"(3) FAILUES o» STATX TO SUBMIT UVOBT.—If a Governor of a
State does not submit the report required by subsection (a)
within the period specified by subsection (cKZ). the Adminis-
trator shall, within 30 months after the date of the enactment of
this section, prepare a report for such State which makes the
identifications required by paragraph* UNA) aad (1KB) of
subsection (a). Upon completion of the requirement of the
preceding sentence and after notice and opportunity for com-
ment, the Administrator shall report to Congress on his actions
pursuant to this section.
-------
-5-
Subject
What if
State fails
to submit a
Management
Program?
(e) LOCAL MANAGEMENT PHOGHAMS; TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE--^a
State fails to submit a management program under subsection (b) or
the Administrator does not approve such a management program, a
local public agency or organization which has expertise ui, and
authority to, control water pollution resulting from nonpoint
nourcn in any area of such State which the Administrator deter-
mines is of sufficient geographic size may, with approval of such
State, request the Administrator to provide, and the Administrator
shall provide, technical assistance to such agency or organization in
developing for such area a management program which is deserted
in subsection (b) and can be approved pursuant to subsection (d).
After development of such management program, such agaacy or
organisation shall submit such management program to the
Administrator for approval If the Administrator approve* such
management program, such agency or organisation shau be eligible
to receive financial assistance under subsectloo (h) for implementa-
tion of such management program as if such agency or organization
were a State for which a report submitted under subsection (a) and a
management program submitted under subsection (b) were approved
under this section. Such financial assistance shall be subject to the
same terms and conditions as assistance provided to a State under
subsection (h).
EPA Technical
Assitance
Interstate
Management
Conference
"(ft TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE roa STATE*.— Upon reoutct of.
the Administrator may provide techni^assiSuicTtoTuch
developing a management program apprcTedunder
for thoso portions of the navigable waSrVrequeSS I
. .—
(1) CONVENING 07 CONFEEENCE; NOTinCATION; P«aK«.-If
any portion of the navigable waters in^y SUteWhS TŁ
implementing a management program approved under th2
section is not meeting applicable water quantystendards or the
goals and requirements of this Act as a resu't!ta whole or in
part, of pollution from non point sourcea in another State, tuch
State, may petition the Administrator to convene, and the
Administrator shall convene, a management conference of all
States, which contribute significant pollution resulting from
nonpomt sources to such portion. If. on the basis of rnfonnaDon
available, the Administrator determines that a State kinoe
meeting applicable water quality standards or the goal" and
requirements of this Act as a result in whole or inpartTof
significant pollution from nonpoint sourcea in anotherStete.
the Administrator shall notify such States. The Administrator
may convene a management conference under this paragraph
l
h..-
or not the Sutt which is not meeting such standards requests
such conference. The purpose of such conference shallbe to
develop an agreement among such States to reduce the level of
pollution in such portion resulting from nonpoint sources and to
improve the water quality of such portion. Nothing in such
agreement shall supersede or abrogate rights to quantities of
water which have been established by interstate water com-
pacts. Supreme Court decrees, or Suu water laws. This subsec-
tion shall not apply to any pollution which is subject to the
Colorado Riv»r Basin Salinity Control Act. The requirement
that tht Administrator convene a management conference shall
not be subj«ct to the provisions of section 505 of this Act.
-------
-6-
Subject
Interstate
Management
Conference
(continued)
"i2> STATE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM REQUIREMENT.—To tht
extent that the States reach agreement threufh such eon*
ference. tht management programs of tht Sutt» which art
partiw to such agreements and which contribute significant
pollution to the nxvigtblc wa».«rt or poniciu thettof not meet-
mf applicable water quality standard* or coals and require-
ments of this Act will bt revised to reflect such agreement Such
management program* shall be consistent with Federal and
State law.
Requirements
for grant?
under 5 3T9 (h)
Assessment/
Management
Program must be
approved
Use of 205 (j)(5)
funds
Federal share
not to exceed
601
No more than 15%
of tht authorization
for this subsection
may go to one State
Priority
considerations for
§ 319 (h) grants
"(h) GIANT PROGRAM.—
"(1) GRANT* yoa IKTUMINTATION or MANAGEMENT
ciAMi.—Upoa applieatioa of a State for which a report submit-
tad undar subsection (a) tad a management program submitted
under subaactioa (b) ia approved under th» section, ths)
Adminiatrator shall maka franta, subiact to such tan» aad
condition* aa the Adminiatrator cenaioera appropriata, oadar
thi» subsection to such Stata for the purpose of ajtistinf tha>
Stata in iraplamantinf such manaftraant procram. Funda ra-
served pursuant to section 203JX5) of thia Aet may be uaad ta
develop and implement such manaffement program.
"(2) AmjCATiom.—Aa applJcatioo for a grant under thia
suboction in ony fiscal year shall be in such form and shall
contain such other information aa the Adminiatrator may re-
quire, including «a identification and daacriauoa of the beat
management practice* and measures which tM State proposes
to assist, encourage, or require in such year with the Federal
assistance to be provided under the grant
"(3) FEOUAJ. SMASS.—Th« Federal share of the cost of each
management program implemented with Federal assistance
under thia subsection in any fiscal year shall not exceed 60
percent of the cost incurred by the Sute in implementing such
management program and shall be made on condition that the
non-Federal share ia provided from non-Federal •oureea.
"(4) LIMITATION ON OBANT AMOUNT*.—Notwithstanding any
other provision of thia subsection, not mere than 15 percent of
the amount appropriated to carry out thia subsection may be
used to make granta to any ooe State, including any grant* to
any local public agency or organization with authority to con-
trol pollution from nonpoint sources in any area of such State.
"(5) Paioarrt FO« ETOCTIV* MICMANBMJ-For each fiscal
year beginning after September 30, 1917, the Adminiatrater
may give priority in making granta under this subsection, and
shall give consideration in determining the Federal share of any
such grant, to States which hare implemented or an proposing
to implement management programs which will—
"(A) control particularly difficult or serious nonpoint
source pollution problem* including, but not limited to,
problems resulting from mining activities; . „
"(B) implement innovative methods or practices for
controlling nonpoint sources of pollution, including
regulatory programs where the Adramtatrator deems
appropriate:
-------
-7-
Subjtct _
Requirements for grants under
qu
319
(ft) (continue
Priority
considerations for
§ 319 (h) grants
Availability for
obligation
Financial assistance
to individuals only
for costs related to
demonstration projects
Satisfactory progress
"(O control interstate nonpoint source pollution prob-
lems: or
"(D) carry out ground water quality protection activities
which the Administrator determines art part of a com-
prehensive nonpoint source polluiion control program,
including research, planning, ground water assessments.
demonstration programs, enforcement. taehnical assistance.
education, and training to protect ground waUr quality
from nonpoint sources or pollution.
"(6) AvAiutBturv rot OBLIGATION.— The funds frantad to
each State pursuant to this subsection ia a fiscal year shall
remain available for obligation by such State for the fiscal year
for which appropriated. The amount of any such funds not
obligated by the end of such fiscal year shall be available to the
Administrator for graatiaf to ether States) under thii subsection
ia the neat fiesal year.
"(7) LIMITATION ON ua or rvmev- States may use tads frees
grants made pursuant to thfe section fat financial aeaistaaee to
persona only to the •xteatthat such
Maintenance
effort
of
Request for
information
Annual State
reports
required
Limitation on
administrative
costs (shall
not exceed 101)
ie ralatod to the
oasts of domooetrotioB projects^
"(8) SATWACKCT. rmoaaaai.— No gnat Buy be mode o&dor
this suboeetioa ia aay (local year to a State which ia the
preeediBff fiscal year received • mat under thie eobaectioa
ualeee tie Administrator deteraiaea that such State made
satisfactory progress in such preceding fiscal year ia meeting
the schedule specified by such State under subsection (bm
"(9) MAINTCMANCI or crrorr— No grant may be made to a
State under this subsection in any fiscal year unless such State
enters into such agreements with the Administrator as the
Administrator may require to ensure that such State will main*
tain its aggregate expenditures from all other sources for pro*
grams for controlling pollution added to the navigable waters in
such State from nonpoint sources and improving the quality of
such waters at or above the average leveCjaf such expenditures
in its two fiscal years preceding the date w enactment of this
subsection
"(10) Riqucfr raa iNfoaMATiow.— The Administrator may
request such information, data, and reports ea he considers
necessary to make the determination of continuing eligibility
for grants under this section.
"(11) RcnatiNG AND onto tte.uifiSMDrn.— Each State shall
report to the Administrator on an annual basis concerning (A)
its progress in meeting the schedule of milestones submitted
pursuant to subsection to the
extent that appropriate information is available, reductions in
nonpoint source pollutant loading and improvements in water
quality for those navigable waters or watersheds within the
State which were identified pursuant to subsection (aXIXA) of
this section resulting from implementation of the management
program.
"(12) LIMITATION ON AOMiNamuTtvt COSTS.— For purposes of
this subsection, administrative costs in the form of salaries,
overhead, or indirect costs for services provided and charged
against activities and programs carried out with a grant under
this subsection shall not exceed in any fiscal year 10 percent of
the amount of the grant in such year, except that costs of
implementing enforcement and regulatory activities, education.
training, technical assistance, demonstration project*, snd tech-
nology transfer programs shall not be subject to this limitation.
-------
-8-
Subject
Requirements for grants under § 319 (1)
for protecting groundwater quality
Eligible applicants
and activities
Federal share
not to exceed 501
III GXANTS FO* PHOTtCTlNO UHOUNDWATM —
••(I) EUCIBLC ArrucANTi AND ACTivircs-Upcn sppltcation
-of » Sttt* for which a report aubrn.tted under «uiM*ciion (a) and
* plan submitted under mbMction ib» is approved under thia
section, the Administrator shall make grants under thia subsec-
tion to such State for the purpoee or assisting such Sute in
carrying out groundwater quality protection activities which
the Administrator determine! will advance the State toward
implementation of a comprehensive nonpoint sourer pollution
control progr«n>. Such activitiea shall include, but not be
limited to. research, planning, groundwater ssaseemsnfs. dem-
onstration programs, enforcement, technical assistance,
education and training to protect th« quality of grouadwatar
and to prtveat contamination of grouadwater from aoapoiat
sources of pollution. ""
"(^AmjCATiOH«.-Aa application for a grmat under thsi
subsection shall be in aueh form and thall eontato such inform*-
tion as the Administrator may require.
"(3) FtBttAL IMA**; MAXIMUM AMOUNT.—The Federal char*
of the coat of assisting a State in carrying out groundwater
^ŁŁ"5, •etivili*« '« any fi««al y««r under this subsection
shall be 50 percent of the costs incurred by the State in carrying
out such activities, eicept that the masiauai amount of Federal
assistance which any State may receive under this subsection in
any fiscal year shall not exceed $150,000. «»«*• »
"(4) Riroar-The Administrator shall include in each report
transmitted under subsection (m) a report on the activities and
programs implemented under this subsection during the preced-
ing fiscal year.
Authorizations for
§ 319 (h) and (i)
EPA required to
compile Information
regarding Federal
programs/projects
"U> AUTHORIZATION or ApnonuATioNt.—There is authorised to be
appropriated to carry out subsections (h) and (i) not to siceed
lfO.000,000 for fiscal year 1988, $100.000,000 per fiscal year for each
of fiscal yean 1989 and 1990. and 8130.000,000 for fiscal war 1991;
except that for each of such fiscal years net to exceed 87,500,000 may
b> made available to carry out subsection (i). Sums appropriated
pursuant to this subsection shall remain available until expended.
"(k) CONSISTENCY or Orxn PIOGBAMS ANV PBOJBCTB Wmt
MANACBMINT PXOGBAMS.—The Administrator shall transmit to the
Office of Management and Budget and the appropriate Federal
departments and agencies a list of those assistance programs aad
development projects identified by each State under subsection
(bX2xF) for which individual assistance applications and projects
will be reviewed pursuant to the procedures set forth in Ejiecutive
Order 12372 as in effect on September 17.1983. Beginning not later
than sixty days after receiving notification by too Administrator,
each Federal department and agency shall modify existing regular
tions to allow States to review individual development projects and
assistance applications under the identified Federal assistance pro-
grams and shall accommodate, according to the requirements and
definitions of Executive Order 12372. as in effect on September 17,
1983. the concerns of the State regarding the consistency of such
applications or projects with the State nonpoint source pollution
management program.
-------
-9-
Subject
EPA required
to compile
Information
on BMPs
(1) CoLUcnoit or lNro*MATtoN.-The
for reducing nonpoint sourct pollution; and (2)
dau concerning the relationship betwtcn wSr
EPA annual
reports
required
toB.-
EPA final
report
required
"(2)
1A)
the
•OWM. end typ« •/ b«t
doerib. the nDtritnew of the Sut« ia adhwiaff to
»«Pl«»«a«»'»f b« maaAftmMt p
UM amount and uppoSTSr rants
"(0) identify, to the «xt«at that informatioak avmilabto.
the profrtai made ia reducing poUutaat loadi aad imprav.
"(E) indicate what furtheTictioa^aeed to be takea to
attain and maintain ia those navigable waters (D applicable
y tor quality suadarde, aad (tt) thagoaJa aad reej&waanta
"(F) include rernmmondiittoBi of the
cencerninf future profraae (iadudiaf eafbreeaeat pro-
frams) for contreUiaf peUutioa from aoapotat ewrcea; aad
•HG idenU/y the act&tfae aad proframTof departaeata,
afennea, and inetruateatalitiea of the United Statae which
are wconiittent with the aaaafement profnaM eubahted
by the Statea aad recoauaend atodiAcatioai to that euch
activitiea aad profframe are oeaaiatent with aad aanet the
Statea ia impiemeatttioa of euch aaaafement
EPA stiffing
levels
"(n) Set Asm roe, AMtiiranuitvi PneotnoL.—Not less than 5
percent of the fundi appropriated pursuant to subesctioa (j) for any
flaeal year shall be available to the Administrator to maintain
personnel levels at the Environmental Protactioa Agency at levels
which are adequate to carry out this section ia such year..
-------
-10-
Subject
Policy for
control of
NPS pollution
(b> POLICY FOR CONTROL or NONKMNT SOURCB or POLLUTION.—
Section lOlia) is amended by striking out "and" at UM end at
paragraph (5), by striking out tha period at the end of paragraph 16)
and inserting in lieu thereof "; and", aad by adding at tha end
thereof the following:
"(7) it is the national policy that programs for tha control of
nonpoint sources of pollution be developed and implemented in
an expeditious manner so aa to enable the goals of this Act to be
met through the control of both point and nonpoint sourc*a of
pollution. .
Construction grant set-asides
Governor's discretionary
set-aside - § 201(g)(l)
(e) EuGiiruTY or NONVOINT Soviets.—The laat sentence of sec-
tion 201(f XI) is amended by—
(1) striking out "sentence," tha fint place it appears aad
inserting in heu thereof "sentencea,";
(2) insertinf "(A)" after "Octobtr 1,1984, for"; and
(3) inserting before "except that" the following: "aad (B) aay
purpose for which a mat may be made under section* 319 (a)
and (i) of this Act (tacludlnf aay innovative aad alternative
approaches for tha control of aoapoiat sources of
§ 205(j)(5)
Conforming
amendments
(d) RonvATiov or fume.—Section 206XJ) if weeded by adding
at tha end the foUowtag o«w paragraphs
"(5) NoKfoorr nvici ua»YAT»w.-Ia addition to tfa*
reaerved under paragraph (H the A4miaMrmtar ahaU
each fiscal rear for each State 1 percent of .the -_-_-.-„
aad available for obligation to ouch State under this ssctk* for
each fiscal year beginning OB or alter October 1, 1996, or
$100,000, whichever is greater, for the purpose of carryiM out
section 319 of this Act. Sums so reserved ia a State in any fiscal
year for which such State does not request tha use of such sums,
to the extent such sums exceed $100,000, may be used by such
State for ether purpose* under this title.".
(e) CONFORMING **tmwact.—Section $04(M1) is amended by
inserting "and aenpoint source pollution «?«n*ffi2«"t ?«>«r*mf
approved under section 319 of this Act" aJteTW of this Act .
State Revolving Funds
State Revolving
Funds nay bt
used to Impleatnt
NPS programs
established under
§ 319
"(c) PROrten Euonui roa AaavrANCX-Tae aaouata of nuds
available to each State water pollution control revolving ftiad •h«"
be used only for providing financial isrirsnrt (1) to any municipal-
^i^UmuniSi'11' «"«•«««•. or State agency for coaatructioa of
pubbcly owned treatment works (at defined in section 212 of thia
Act), (2) for the implementation of a management program estab»
bshed uader section 319 of thia Act. aad(3) for development «nd
implementation of a conservation aad aaaagement plan under
section 320 of thia Act. The fund shall be eexabliahed, »-'"»-j"^
aad credited with repayments, and tha fund balance shall be avail-
able ia perpetuity for providing such financial assistance.
-------
-11-
Sub.lect
Intended Use
Plans required
for Statt
Revolving
Funds
Je) brmno Un Pux.-After providing for public comment
•ad review, ,ach State shall aimually prepare a pianidMtUyinfthe
intended uaei of the aaounta available to its water pollution cootrol
revomnc fund. Such intended UM plan fhall include, but act bt
•XI) a Uit of taoae project* for eoaatnictioa of publicly owned
J****81*1*' TffK00 th* Suw>> Plenty U* d»T»bp*i punuaat
to MCUOB 218 of thii Act and a U*at tctMtim tliaibl* for
^^
of itt wattr pollutioa control rtvel
'(3) mfernatioa oa ti» ac«hrttiM to b* tuppettad. iad
dtaenptioa of projaet catafonw. diaeharia ratuirtmtnti uaotr
tttl« m and IV of thia Act. tarau of fiaaadal aaaistanc*. and
coBuauubN strvad:
"(4) aafunacaa and mafic propoaala for mactiaf the rmir*
mtata of parafrapha (31, (4). (5), and (6) of Metiott <03b) at tbis
Asti and
'\5)
fund*.
Conslsttncy
rtqulrtmtnt for
Statt Revolving
Funds
"(ft CoNnmxcr Wrw PIANXTXO
.— A Sut»
_ »• --««.. - .—
provide flnaneial ataimaea froa ita watar peUutiea eoBtroi
inf Hund only with raapact ta a project which » rnraiitanr with
pLua. rf any, dmlopad und«r sactioaa 2080X 201. 30*.), 31S. and
320 of thia Act
Othar Miscellaneous MRS Provisions
Rural Clean
Water Pro-
gram (RUCP)
'•> RUVAL CUAN WATB.—Saetion 208(jX8) ia amaadad by ftrikiat
ftar "19«." the fbilowinir
fiaealyaan 1988 throofh
out -'and" aftar "1911." and by inatrtinc aftar "19K." tba 'fbllowinf:
Maary for ~
"and «uch suau aa may be
1990,"
Agricultural
stormwater
discharges
no longer
defined as
point sources
SCC. Ml AGRICU.TVIUI. STOftXWATCX OlSCHAftGO.
Stctioa 502(141 (rtlatiaf to the definition of point source) ia
amended by inaertiaf after "doae not include" the following "aan-
cultural atormwater diachar|« and"
Indian
. "
-------
-12-
Subltct
Indian Trlbts
"(*> TRCATMCKT AJ STATM.—The Administrator is authorized to
tr«at an Indian iribt as a Slat* for purposes of titlt II and sections
104.106. 303, 3W. 306. 209. 314. 319. 401. 402. and 404 of thie Act to
the dtfrtt necessary to carry out tht objectives of thia section, but
only if—
"(1) the Indian tribe has a foverninff body carrying out
substantial f ovtramtnul duties and powers;
"(2) UM functions to be exerciaed by the Indian tribe pertain
to the management and protection of water resources which are
held by an Indian tribe, held by the United States ia trust foi
Indiana, held by a member of an Indian tribe if such property
inure* ia subject to a trust restriction on alienation, or other-
wise within the borders of an Indian isssnistlou. sad
"(S) the 'ndiaa tribe is reasonably expected to be capable, ia
tho Administrator's judfBant, of carrying out the Auction* to
be exercised ia a manner consistent vita tho tsrms sad pur
poaea of thfe Act and of sJl applkoale regulation*.
Such treatment as a State oay include the direct provision offends*
reserved under subsection (c) to the governing bodies of Indian?
tribes, and tho determination of priorities by Indian tribes, where*
not determined by the Administrator in cooperation with tho Wree-:
tor of the Indian Health Service. The Administrator, in
f tho Indian Heaha Service, it i
mats grants under title 0 of this Act in an amount not to exaeed
100 percent of the cost of a project. Not later than II months after
consultation with Indian tribes, promulgate final regulations which
specify how Indian tribes shall be treated as States for purposes of
this Act The Administrator shall, in promulgating such regulation*.
consult affected States sharing common water bodies aad provide a
mechanism for the resolution of any unreasonable consequences
that may arise ss a result of differing water quality standards that
may be set by States and Indian tribes located on common bodies of
water. Such mechanism shall provide for explicit conoids ration of
relevant factors including, but not limited to, the effects of differing
water quality permit requirements on upstream and downstream
dischargers, economic impacts, and present aad historical uses sad
quality of the waters subject to such standards. Such mechanism
should provide for the avoidance of such unreosonabli
in a manner consistent with tho objective of this Act
"(ft Glum rot NONMWT Souacs Pioojuja.—The
trator shall make grants to an Indian tribe under section 111 of this
Act ss though such tribe was a State. Not more than one-third of
one percent of the amount appropriated for any fiscal year under
section 31S may be used to make grants under this subsection. In
addition to the requirements of section lit, aa Indian tribe shall be
required to meet the requirements of paragraphs (H (8, and (3) of
subsection (d) of thia section in order to receive such a grant.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. .250 / Thursday. December 29. 1900 /Notices
52829
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Intent To Prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement for the Proposal To
Lease Approximately 1,000 acres of
the Ft Mojave Indian Reservation,
Nevada (or a Mixed Residential,
Commercial and Recreational Project
AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Interior.
ACTiorc Notice of intent and public
scoping meetings.
SUMMARY: This notice advises the public
that the Bureau intends to gather-
information necessary for the .
preparation of an Environmental Impact '
Statement (EIS) for the proposal to lease
approximately 1.000 acres of the FL
Mcjave Indian Reservation. Nevada, for
a mixed residential, commercial and
recreational project in Clark County.
Public scoping meetings will be held to
receive input and questions from
. members of the public regarding this.
proposal and preparation of this EIS.
This notice is being furnished as
required by the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) Regulations (40 CFR
1501.7) to obtain suggestions and
information from other agencies and the
public on the scope of issues to be
addressed in the EIS. Comments and
participation in this' scoping process arc
solicited.
DATES: Written comments should be
received on or before January 30. 1989.
Scoping meetings to identify issues
and alternatives to be evaluated in the
EIS will be held on Tuesday. January 10.
1989. at the Mojave High School. 1414
Handcock Road. Riveria (Bullhead City
area) Arizona, at 7:00 pm. and on
Wednesday. January 11. 1909. at the Fort
Mojave Indian Tribal Chambers. SOO
Merriman. Needles. California, at 7:00
pm. Comments and participation in the
scoping process arc solicited and should
be directed to the BIA at the address
provided. below or to Carter Associates,
Inc.. Attention: Ms. Leslie J. Stafford.
5080 North 40th Street. Suite 300.
Phoenix, Arizona 85018.
Significant issues to be covered during
the scoping process include biotic;
archeological. cultural and historic sites:
socioeconomic conditions: visual and
land use: air and water quality: and
resource use patterns.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be
addressed to Mr. Wilson Barber jr..
Arc:i Director. Phoenix Area Office.
Uiircau of Indian Affairs. P.O. Box 10.
I'hounix. Arizona (i!iQ01.
Environmental Protection Specialist.
Bureau of Indian Affairs. Phoenix Area
Office. P.O. Box 10. Phoenix, Arizona
05001. telephone (002) 241-2281 or ITS
201-2201.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Tlic
Bureau of Indian Affairs, in cooperation
with the Ft. Mojave Indian Tribe, will
prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) on a proposed lease site
located on the FL Mojave Indian
Reservation on the Nevada side of the
Colorado River north of the junction of
Nevada; California and Arizona! The
proposed lease would include
approximately 1.000 acres of mixed
residential, commercial and recreational
development. The current proposal is .
divided into two phases of development.
The first phase would include one hotel
with approximately ISO rooms, 500
residential units, 'and an artificial lake of
•approximately 40 acres. The second
phase would include two hotels, one
with approximately 300 rooms and one
with about 800 rooms, 1.000 residential
units. lake expansion to a total of 75
acres, and an 18-holo golf course. The FL
Mojave Indian Tribe had identified this
area as a future ncxv townsile as early
as 1955 and more recently adopted land
use plans ivhich support" this type of-
development
Information describing the proposed
action will be sent to the appropriate
Federal tribal, state and local agencies
and to private organizations and citizens
expressing an interest in this proposal.
The principal alternatives identified
are to build the project as planned, not
to build the project build a smaller
project, use a different location, or use
the land for other purposes. Potential
Environmental Impacts that may be of
concern are to Water Resources.
Biological Resources and
Transportation.
This notice Is published pursuant to
§ 1501.7 of the Council of Environmental
Quality regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500
through 1508) implementing the
procedural requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 19G9. as
amended (42 U.S.C. 4371 ct scq.),
Department of the Interior Manual (510
DM 1-6) and is in the exercise of
authority delegated by the Secretary of
the Interior to the Deputy Assistant
Secretary-Indian Affairs by 209 DM 0.
Oj;<-: l)i!C<::iilx:r 21 1. WM.
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Amy L. H'jtislcin. Area
U'.P.
Acting Assistant Srt rdttrv — //irfiVw Affairs.
|f'K Hoc. !IO-»Ii:. coin muni lilts iinj |iu«*1»lo* M5 uoU M
-------
, 52830 Federal Register-./ Vol. 53.-.No.,.250./-Thursday. December 29. 1968 / Notices
Bridgeport Piiiule Indian Colony of California
' Buena Vista Rancheria of Mo-Wuk Indiana of
California
Dumi Paiute Indian Colony. Oregon
Cabazon Band of Cahuilla Mission Indiani of
(he Cabazon Reservation. California
Cachil Ocllc Band of Wintun Indians of the
Colusa Indian Community of the Colusa •
Rancheria. California
Caddo Indian Tribe of Oklahoma
Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians of the
Cahuilla Reservation. California .
Cahto Indian Tribe of the Laylonville
Ranchcria, California
CampoDand ofDicgucno Mission Indian* of
the Campo Indian Reservation, California
Capilan Grande Band ofDicgucno Mission
Indiani of Califlmia:
Barona Croup of the Barona Reservation.
California
Vlejn Croup of the Viejas Reservation. •
California
Ccuyga 'Nation of New York
Cedarvillc Rancheria of Northern Paiufc
Indians of California
Chemehuevi Indian Tribe of the Chcmehuevi
Reservation. California
Cher-Ac Heights Indian Community of the
Trinidad Rancheria, California
Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma
Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne
River Reservation. South Dakota
Chlckasaw Nation of Oklahoma
Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-VVuk Indians
of California
Chlpoewa-CreeIndians of the Rocky Boy'c
, Reservation. Montana
Chilimacha Tribe of Louisiana
Choclaw Nation of Oklahoma
Citizen BandFoUwatomi Indian Tribe of
Oklahoma
Ctoverdale Rancheria of Porno Indians of
California
Coast Indian Community of Yurok Indians of
the Resighini Rancheria. California
Co cop ih Tribe of Arizona
Coeur D'Alene Tribe of the Coeur D'Alene
Reservation, Idaho
Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians of
California
Colorado River Indian Tribes of the Colorado
River Indian Reservation. Arizona and
California
Comanche Indian Tribe of Oklahoma
Confederated Salish & Kooienai Tribes of the
Flathead Reservation. Montana
Confedera ted Tribes of the Chchalis
Reservation. Washington
Confederated Tribes of the Colville
Reservation. Washington
Confederated Tribes of the Coos. Lower
Umpqua and Siuclaw Indian of Oregon
Confederated Tribes of the Coshute
Reservation. Nevada and Utah
Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde
Community of Oregon
Confederated Tribes of the Siletr
Reservation, Oregon
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla
Reservation. Oregon
Confederated Tribes of the VVurm Springs
^ Reservation of Oregon
Confederated Tribes of the Bands of the
Yakima Indian Nation of the Yakima
Reservation, Washington
Cortina Indian Rancheria of Wintun Indians
of California
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana
Covclo Indian Community of the Round
• Valley Reservation. California
Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians of
Oregon
Coyote Valley Band of Pomo 'Indians of
California
Creek Nation of Oklahoma
Crow Tribe of Montana
Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek'
Reservation. South Dakota
Cuyapaipe Community of Diegueno Mission
.Indian* of the Cuyapaipe Reservation,'
California
Death Valley Tirabi-Sha Shosbooe Band of
• California
Delaware Tribe of Western Oklahoma
Devils Lake Sioux Tribe of the Devil* Lake
Sioux Reservation, North Dakota
Dry Creek Rancheria of Pomo Indians of
• California
Duckwaler Shoihone Tribe of the Duckwater
Reservation. Nevada
. Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians of North
Carolina
• Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma
Elcm Indian Colony of Pomo Indians of the
-Sulphur Bank-Rancheria. California
' Elk Valley Rancheria of Smith River Tolowa
Indians of California
Ely Indian Colony of Nevada
Enterprise Rancheria of Maidu Indian of
California
Flandrcau Santee.Tribe of South Dakota
•Forest County Potawatomi Community of
Wisconsin Pofawaiomie Indians.
Wisconsin
Fort Bclknap Indian Community of the Fort
• Belknap Reservation of Montana
Fort Bid well Indian Community of Paiute
Indians of the Fort Bidwell Reservation,
California
Fort Independence Indian Community of
Paiute Indians of the'Fort Independence
Reservation, California
Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoihone Tribes
of-the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation.
Nevada .
Fort McDowell Mohave-Apache Indian
Community of the Fort McDowell Indian
Reservation.'Arizona
Fort Mojave Indian Tribe of Arizona
Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma
Gay Head Wampanoag Indians of
Massachusetts
Gila River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
of the Gila River Indian Reservation of
Arizona
Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa & Chippewa
Indians of Michigan
Greenville Rancheria of Maidu Indians of
California
Grindstone Indian Rancheria of Wintun-
Wailaki Indians of California
Hiiniulwille Indian Community of Wisconsin
Polawatomic Indians of Michigan
Ilavasupai Tribe of the Havasupai
Reservation, Arizona
Huh Indian Tribe of the Hoh Indian
Reservation. Washington
Hoopa Valley Tribe of the I loopa Valley
Reservation. California
I lopi Tribe of Arizona
I lopland Band of Pomo Indians of the
I iopland K»nr.hcria. California
I (oulton Band of Maliseet Indians of Maine
Mualapui Tribe of the Hualapai Indian
' Reservation. California
Ins ja Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of
the Inaja and Cosmit Reservation.
California
Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska
Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma
Jackson Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of'
California
Jamestown Klallam Tribe of Washington •'
jamul Indian Village of California
jicarilla Apache Tribe of the Jicarilla Apache
Indian Reservation, New Mexico '
Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians ofthe Kaibab
Indian Reservation. Arizona
Katispel Indian Community of the Kalisp'el"
.Reservation. Washington Kamk Tribe of
California
Kashia Band of Pomo Indian* ofthe Stewarts
Point Rancheria. California
.Kaw Indian.Tribe of Oklahoma
Kcweenaw Bay Indian Community of L'Ansc
and Ontonagon Bands of Chippewa Indian*
of the L'Anse Reservation, Michigan : •
Kialcgec Tribal Towa of the Creek Indian
Na lion' of Oklahoma .
Kickapoo Tribe of Indian* of the Kickapoo
Reservation in Kansas
Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma (includes Texas
Band of Kickapoo Indians)
Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma
Klamath Indian Tribe of Oregon
Kootcnai Tribe of Idaho
La Jolla Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of
. 'the La Jolla Reservation^ California
La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians.
of the La Posta Indian Reservation.
California
Lac Courte Oreillcs Band of Lake Supcrio.
Chippewa Indians of the Lac Courte'
Oreilles Reservation of Wisconsin ••
Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior
Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau
Reservation of Wisconsin
Lac Vieux Desert Bank of Lake Superior
Chippewa Indians of Michigan •
Las Vegas Tribe of Paiute Indians of the Las
Vegas Indian Colony. Nevada
Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla Mission.
Indians of the Los Coyotes Reservation.
California
Lovelock Paiute-Tribe ofthe Lovelock Indian
. Colony. Nevada
Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule
Reservation, South Dakota
Lower Elwha Tribal Community of the Lower
Elwha Reservation,' Washington
Lower Sioux Indian Community of Minnesota
Mdewakanton Sioux Indians of the Lower
Sioux Reservation in Minnesota
Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reservation,
Washington
Makah Indian Tribe of the Ma"l;ah Indian
Reservation, Washington
Manchester Band of Pomo Indians of the
Manchester-Point Arena Rancheria.
California
Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians
of the Manzanila Reservation, California
Mashantuckct Pequot Tribe of Connecticut
Mcnomincc Indian Tribe of Wisconsin
Mesa Grande Band of Diegueno Mission
Indians of the Mesa Grande Reservation.
California
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 250 / Thursday Doccmbcr 29. 1988 / Notices
52831
Mcscolcro Apache Tribe <•; 'he Mcsc..!cro
Reservation. New Mexico
Miami Tribe of Oklahoma
Miccosukcc Tribe of Indians of Florida
Middlclown Ranchcria of Pomo Indians of
California
Minnesota Chippawa Tribe. Minnesota (Six
component Reservations: Bbis Forte Dand
'(Nctt Lake). Fond du Lac Band. Grand
Portage Band. Leech Lake Band. Mil|c Lac
Dand. While Earth Band)
Mississippi Band of Choclaw Indians.
Mississippi
Moapa Band of Paiute Indians of the Moapa
River Indian Reservation. Nevada,
Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma
Mooretown Rancheria of Maidu Indians of
California
Moronogo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians
of the Morongo Reservation. California
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe of the Muckleshoot
Reservation. Washington
Narragansett Indian Tribe of Rhode Island
Navajo Tribe of Arizona. New Mexico and
Utah
Net Perec Tribe of Idaho
Nisqually Indian Community of the Nisqually
Reservation. Washington.
Nooksack Indian Tribe of Washington
Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern
Cheyenne Indian Reservation. Montana
Northfork Rancheria of Mono Indians of
California
Northwestern Band of Shoshoni Indians of
Utah (Washakie)
Ogala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge
Reservation. South Dakota
Omaha Tribe of Nebraska
Dneida Nation of New York
Jncida Tribe of Wisconsin
Onondaga Nation of New York
Osagfr Tribe of Oklahoma
Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma
Otoc-Missouria Tribe of Oklahoma
Psiute Indian Tribe of Utah
Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop
Community of the Bishop Colony.
California
Paiute-Shoshone Tribe of the Fallen
Reservation and Colony. Nevada
Peiute-Shoshone Indians of the Lone Pine
Community of the Lone Pine Reservation.
California
Pa!a Band of Luiseno Mission fcidians of the
Pala Reservation. California
Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona
Passamaquoddy Tribe of Maine
Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of
the Pauma & Yuima Reservation. California
Pawnee Indian Tribe of Oklahoma
Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of
the Pechanga Reservation. California
Penobscot Tribe of Maine
Peoria Tribe of Oklahoma
Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of
California
Pinoleville Rancheria of Pomo Indians of
California
Pit River Tribe of California (includes Big
Bend, Lookout. Montgomery Creek &
Roaring Creek Rancheries 6 XL Ranch)
Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama
' onca Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma
port Gamble Indian Community of the Port
Gamble Reservation. Washington
Jllcr Vall?y Rancheria of Pomo Indians of
<-aufomia
Prairie Dand of Polawalomi Indians
Kansas
Pruiric Island Indian Community of
Minnesota Mdewakanton Sioux Indian* of
the Prairie Island Reservation. Minnesota
Pueblo of Acoma. New Mexico
I'ucblo of Cochiti. New Mexico
Pueblo of Jcmcz. New Mexico
Pueblo of Islcla. New Mexico
Pueblo of Laguna. New Mexico
Pueblo of Nambc, New Mexico
Pueblo of Picuris. New Mexico
.Pueblo of Pojoaque. New Mexico
Pueblo of San Felipe. New Mexico
Pueblo of San Juan. New Mexico.
Pueblo of San lldefonso. New Mexico
Pueblo of Sandia. New Mexico
Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico
Pueblo of Santa Clara. New Mexico
Pueblo of Santo Domingo. New Mexico
Pueblo of Taos. New Mexico
Pueblo of Tesuque. New Mexico
Pueblo of Zia. New Mexico
Puyallup Tribe of the Puyallup Reservation.
Washington
Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid
Lake Reservation, Nevada
Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma
Quartz Valley Rancheria of Karok, Shasta &
Upper Ktamath Indians of California'
Quechan.Tribe of the Fort Yuraa Indian
Reservation. California
Quileute Tribe of the Quilcute Reservation.
• Washington
Quinault Tribe of the Quinault Reservation.
Washington
Ramoria Band or Village of Cahuilla Mission
Indians of California
Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
• Indians of Wisconsin
Red Lake Bank of Chippewa Indians of the
Red Lake Reservation. Minnesota .
Redding Rancheria of Pomo Indians of
California
Redwood Valley Rancheria of Pomo Indians
of California
Reno-Sparks Indian Colony. Nevada
Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of
the Rincon Reservation. California
Robinson Rancheria of Pomo .Indians of
California
Rohnerville Rancheria of Bear River or
Matlole Indians of California
Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian
Reservation. South Dakota
Rumsey Indian Rancheria of Wintun Indians
of California
Sac & Fox Tribe ol the Mississippi In Iowa
Sac & Fox Tribe.of Missouri in Kansas and
Nebraska
Sac ft Fox Tribe of Oklahoma
.Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan.
Isabella Reservation
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
- of the Salt River Reservation. Arizona
San Carlos Apeche Tribe of the San Carlos
Reservation. Arizona
San Manual Band of Serrano Mission Indians
of the San Manual Reservation. California
San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission
Indians of California
Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa
Rosa Ranchcria. California
Santa Rosa Bond of Cahuilla Mission Indians
of the Santa Rosa Reservation. California
Mission
reservation.
Santa Vncz Dand of Chum
Indv . - of the Santa Ys>.
Coliu,:nia
Santa Ysabel Band of Diegut,..u Mission
Indians of the Santa Ysabcl Reservation.
California
Santce Sioux Tribe of the Santcc Reservation
' of Nebraska
Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe of Washington
Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians
of Michigan
Scminole Nation of Oklahoma
Seminole Tribe of Florida, Dania, Big Cypress
& Brighton Reservations
Seneca Nation of New York
Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma -
Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of
Minnesota (Prior Lake)
Sheep Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians
of California
Sherwood Valley Rancheria of Pomo Indians
of California
Shingle Spring* Band of Miwok Indians.
Shingle Springs Rancheria (Verona Tract).
California
Shoalwater Bay Tribe of the Shoalwatcr Bay
Indian Reservation. Washington
Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River
Reservation, Wyoming •
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes cf the Fort Hall
Reservation of Idaho
Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley
Reservation. Nevada
Sisseton-Wahpelon Sioux Tribe of the Lake
Traverse Reservation. South Dakota
Skokomish Indian Tribe of the Skokomish
Reservation, Washington,
Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians of Utah
Smith River Rancheria of California ...
Soboba Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of
the Soboba Reservation. California.
Sokoagon Chippewa Community of the Mole
Lake Band of Chippewa Indians. Wisconsin
Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern
Ute Reservation, Colorado
Spokane Tribs of the Spokane Reservation.
Washington
Squaxin Island Tribe of the Squaxin Island
Reservation. Washington
St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin. Su
Croix Reservation
St Regis Band of Mohawk Indians of New
York
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North ft South
.Dakota .
Stockbridge-Munsee Community of Mohican
Indians of Wisconsin
Stillaguamish Tribe of Washington
Summit Lake Paiute Tribe of Nevada
Suquaraish Indian Tribe of the Port Madison
Reservation. Washington
Susan ville Indian Rancheria of Paiute. Maidu.
Pit River & Wnshoe Indians of California
Swinoicish Indians of the Swinomish
Reservation, Washington
Sycuan Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of
California
Table Bluff Rancheria of Wiyol Indians of
California
Teble Mountain Rancheria of California
Tc-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone'Indians
of Nevada
Thlopthlocco Tribal Town of the Creek
Nation of Oklahoma
-------
52832
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 250 / Thursday. December 29. 1908 / Notices
Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Bcrlhold
Reservation. North Dakota
Tohono O'odham Nalion of Arizona (formerly
known as the Papago Tribe of the Sells.
Cila Bend & San Xavicr Reservation.
Arizona)
Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians of New
York
Tonkawa Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma
Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona
Torres-Martinez Band of Cahuilla Mission
Indians of California
Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River
Reservation. California
Tulalip Tribes of the Tulalip Reservation.
Washington
Tunici-Biloxi Indian Tribe of Louisiana
Tuolumnc Band of Mc-Wuk Indians of the
Tuolumne Ranchcria of California
Turtle Mountain Band of Chippcwa Indians
of North Dakota
Tuscarora Nation of New York
Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Luiscno Mission
Indians of California
United Kectoowah Band of Cherokee Indians.
Oklahoma
Upper lake Band of Porno Indians of Upper
Lake Ranchcria of California
Upper Sioux Indian Community of the Upper
Sioux Reservation. Minnesota
Upper Skagit Indian Tribe of Washington
Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray
Reservation. Utah
Ule Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain
Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah
Utu Utu Cwaltu Palute Tribe of the Benton
Paiule Reservation. California
Walker River Paiute Tribe of the Walker
River Reservation, California
Washoe Tribe of Nevada & California
(Carson Colony. Dresslerville & Washoe
Ranches)
White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort
Apache Reservation. Arizona
Wichita Indian Tribe of Oklahoma
Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska
Winnemucca Indian Colony of Nevada
Wisconsin Winnebago Indian Tribe of
Wisconsin
Wyandolte Tribe of Oklahoma
Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota
Yavapai-Apache Indian Community of the
Camp Verde Reservation. Arizona
Yavapal-Prescott Tribe of the Yavapai
Reservation. Arizona
Yerington Paiute Tribe of the Yerington
Colony & Campbell Ranch, Nevada
Yomba Shoshone Tribe of the Yomba
'Reservation, Nevada
Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo of Texas
Yurok Tribe of the Hoopa Valley Reservation.
California
Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation. New
Mexico
Native Entities Within the State of
Alaska Recognized and Eligible To
Receive Services From the United Stales
Bureau of Indian Affairs
The following are those Alaska
entities which are recognized and
eligible to receive funding and services
from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The
purpose of this updated list is: (1) To
comply with the regulatory requirement
of annual publication pursuant to 25
CFR Part 83. (2) to reflect the Alaska
entities which are statutorily eligible for
funding and services from the Bureau of
Indian Affairs. (3) to make it easier for
previously unlisted, but statutorily
eligible, entities to receive funding and
services, and in so doing, (4) to describe
the criteria used for inclusion on the list
and for making additions.
All of the entities previously listed in
the 1986 Federal Register publication are
included in this list However, the
number of entities listed on the Alaska
Native Entities section is approximately
doubled on the basis of express
Congressional recognition of the types
of entities in Alaska eligible to receive
funding or services from the Bureau of
Indian Affairs. The additional entities
are included without the necessity .of
completing the Federal
Acknowledgment Process because of
more explicit statutory provisions on
groups eligible to receive funding and
services on behalf of Alaska Natives.
The Federal Acknowledgment
Procedures contained in 25 CFR Part 83
set forth a procedure whereby Indian
groups may document their existence as
tribes with a special relationship to the
United States such as to qualify for
funding and services as an "Indian tribe,
organized band, pueblo or community."
Section 83.6(b) requires .that the
Secretary publish a list of Indian tribes
already recognized and receiving
funding and services from the
Department, groups to which the Federal
Acknowledgment Procedures
accordingly do not apply. This list is
published pursuant to § 83.6(b).
The Department first published a list
'of Indian Tribal Entities on February 6,
1979, with the notation that "(t]he list of
eligible Alaskan entities will be
published at a later date." Subsequently.
the Department published an updated
list on November 24.1982, to which it
appended a list of "Alaska Native
Entities Recognized and Eligible to
Receive Services From the United States
Bureau of Indian Affairs." The preamble
which described the scope and purpose
of the Alaska list stated "(wjhile
eligibility for services administered by
the Bureau of Indian Affairs is generally
limited to historical tribes and
communities of Indians residing on
reservations, and their members, unique
circumstances have made eligible
additional entities in Alaska which are
not historical tribes. Such circumstances
have resulted in multiple, overlapping
eligibility of Native entities in Alaska.
To alleviate any confusion which might
arise from publication of a multiple
eligibility listing, the following
preliminary list shows those entities to
which the Bureau of Indian Affairs gives
priority for purposes of funding and
services." 47 FR 53133-53134 (1982). This
preamble was inadvertently dropped
from the subsequent lists.
A number of Alaska Native Entities
have complained to the Department that
they were omitted from previous lists
despite the fact that they are receiving
funding and services from the Bureau of
Indian Affairs and qualify for such
under the statutes that have established
the programs of the Bureau. Some do hot
believe they should have to submit all of
the documentation required of an Indian'
tribe under Part 83 to continue to receive ,
benefits previously provided. Other
departments have also made inquiry
about the eligibility for their programs of
entities included on or omitted from the
1982 Alaska Native Entities List In
addition, there has been confusion on
whether inclusion on or exclusion from
the Alaska Native Entities List
constitutes ah official determination of
the United States government as to the
governmental powers of particular
Alaska villages or entities over non-
members or territory.
The Department agrees that Alaska
Native entities which satisfy the criteria
listed below, and therefore are . .
specifically eligible for the funding and.
services of the Bureau by statute, shoiild
not have to undertake to obtain Federal
Acknowledgment pursuant to Part 83.
We agree they should be included in the
publication required by § 83.6(b) without
further review.
However, inclusion on a list of entities
already receiving and eligible 'for Bureau
funding and services does not constitute
a determination that the entity either
would or would not qualify for Federal
Acknowledgment under the regulations,
but only that no such effort is necessary
in order to preserve eligibility.
Furthermore, inclusion on or exclusion
from this list of any entity should not'be
construed to be a determination by this
Department as to the extent of the
powers and authority of that entity.
The principal demand by the Bureau
and other federal agencies is for a list of
organizations which are eligible for their
funding and services based on their
inclusion in categories frequently
mentioned in statutes concerning federal
programs for Indians. General federal
Indian statutes provide that the Bureau
serve tribes which are usually defined
as "any Indian Tribe, band, nation.
ranchcria, pueblo, colony or
community." With respect to Alaska,
Congress has provided additional
guidance as to whom we should provide .
services. The 1936 amendments to the
Indian Reorganization Act, applicable
-------
Eastern Band of Cherokee
Indians
Qualla Reservation
Section 319
Nonpoint Source Assessment
Report
-------
-------
Qualla Reservation
Section 319
Nonpoint Source Assessment Report
prepared by
Fish & Wildlife Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 241
Whittier, NC 28789
for
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
Tribal Environmental Office
Cherokee, NC 28719
July 1, 1993
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures
List of Tables
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 TRIBAL RESOURCES
2.1 LAND RESOURCES
2.2 WATER RESOURCES
page
i
ii
1
2
2
4
3.0 ASSESSMENT
3.1 SOURCES OF IMPAIRMENT AND/OR THREATS TO WATER
QUALITY
3.1.1 Agriculture
3.1.2 Silviculture
3.1.3 Construction
3.1.4 Urban Runoff
3.1.5 Resource Extraction/Exploration/Development
3.1.6 Land Disposal
3.1.7 Hydrologic/Habitat Modification
3.1.8 Other
3.2 THREATENED AND IMPAIRED WATERBODIES
4.0 CURRENT PROGRAMS
4.1 TRIBAL PROGRAMS
4.1.1 General Environmental Education
4.1.2 Water Quality
4.1.3 Waste Management
4.1.4 Erosion and Sediment Control
4.2 USDA SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
4.3 SOUTHWESTERN N.C. AREA RC&D COUNCIL
4.4 SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
4.5 USDA AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND CONSERVATION
SERVICE
4.6 BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
4.7 INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE
4.8 FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION
4.9 NORTH CAROLINA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE
4.10 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
12
12
12
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
14
14
14
14
14
-------
5.0 PROCESS FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF BEST MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES
5.1 TRIBAL ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICE
5.2 TRIBAL FISH & GAME MANAGEMENT
5.3 TRIBAL WATER & SEWER DEPARTMENT
5.4 BIA FORESTRY SECTION
5.5 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
5.6 U.S. SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
5.7 SWAIN COUNTY SOIL &.WATER CONSERVATION
DISTRICT
5.8 U.S. AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND
CONSERVATION SERVICE
APPENDIX I:
APPENDIX II:
Water Quality Data from the Cherokee EPA 106
Project
Fish Species Present in Tribal Waters compiled
from Cherokee Fish and Game Management Reports
APPENDIX III: Major Nonpoint Source Pollution Categories
and Subcategories
15
15
15
15
15
16
16
16
16
•18
35
41
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
page
Map of the Cherokee Indian Reservation, Swain and
Jackson Counties, NC
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
3 .1 Threatened and impaired waterbodies on. -.the Cherokee
Indian Reservation
5.1 Agencies which cooperated in the preparation of the
NonPoint Source Assessment Report
17.
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians is a federally recognized
American Indian Tribe whose reservation is located primarily in
Swain County, North Carolina with additional lands in Jackson,
Haywood, Graham, and Cherokee Counties of North Carolina. Recent
national concerns over nonpoint sources (NFS) of pollution have
elevated.the need for a Tribal Nonpoint Source Management Program
to a priority level.
As the essential first phase in the development of such a program,
the Assessment Report outlines the status of nonpoint source
impairments to surface and ground waters. This report will provide
the basis for management strategy and decisions.
High quality waters' are defined as having an average summer
temperature of less than 20 C; dissolved oxygen greater than 7
milligrams per liter; sustained turbidity of less than 10 NTU; pH
in the range of 6.0 to 9.0. In addition, the stream is capable of
sustaining a wild trout population through natural reproduction.
All streams on the reservation either meet or exceed the minimum
standards for High Quality Waters. It is the desire of the Tribe
to maintain this standard on all Tribal waters. Since nonpoint
sources comprise the greatest source of water quality problems on
the reservation, these sources must be addressed in order to
achieve the fishable/swimmable goals of the Federal Clean Water
Act.
The goal of the Cherokee Indian Nonpoint Source Management Program
is to provide for the protection and promotion of Tribal waters.
The control, reduction and/or abatement of nonpoint source
pollution will provide for the achievement of the aforementioned
goal.
-------
2.0 TRIBAL RESOURCES
2.1 LAND RESOURCES
The Cherokee lands in North Carolina consist of approximately
56,000 acres, of which 48,688 acres are .located in Swain and
Jackson Counties (Figure 1). Since the majority of the land and
water resources which comprise the reservation are located in Swain
and Jackson Counties, this area alone.represents the target of this
assessment. The remaining lands in Cherokee and Graham Counties
present a "checkerboard" pattern, and the tribe does not own
sufficient tracts of land to have any control over the water
quality of the streams involved. These areas.will be assessed at
a later date as funding is available to determine what measures are
needed to prevent/or correct nonpoint source pollution problems
from these lands. Consideration will be given to adopting state
water quality standards for these areas in Cherokee and Graham
counties.
The Cherokee Indian Reservation is located in the southern
Appalachian Mountains of western North Carolina. Thin soils and
steep topography characterize the land as highly erodible.. Much of
the land on the reservation is covered in timber, and tribal
members frequently log individual tracts of, land. Developed land
is utilized for housing, public buildings, and commercial
structures associated with tourism (i.e., .motels, restaurants,
attractions). Other tourist attractions include trout fishing and
camping.
The reservation operates its own water and sewer treatment
facility, a sanitary landfill and a newly opened recycling center.
The reservation water supply is currently obtained from six (6)
ground water and two (2) surface water sources-. However, the water
and sewer service area does not encompass the entire reservation.
Therefore, many homes rely on ground wells or springs for drinking
water and on septic tanks for treatment of domestic sewage.
The assessment area is divided into communities: Soco, Big
Cove, Birdtown, Yellowhill (Cherokee business district), and the
3200 Acre Tract (Figure 1) . Yellowhill and surrounding lands
located at the junction of Highways 441 and 19 are central to the
assessment area. Yellowhill is largely commercial with shops,
motels, restaurants, as well as industry, schools, a shopping
center, and community buildings.
Soco community extends east to west from the junction of Highway
415 and Highway 19 in Cherokee to the crest of Soco Mountain, a
change in elevation from approximately 1800' to 4200'. This
community lies entirely within Jackson County, extending from the
boundary with Swain County, roughly parallelling the Blue Ridge
Parkway to the boundary on the southern boundary of the Qualla
Reservation. The higher elevations are mostly forested with a few
small residential areas while the valley area is highly residential
-------
Figure 1. Map of the Cherolcee Indian Reservation, Svain and Jackson
Counties, NC.
-------
and heavily developed with tourist accommodations. Located in this
area are 21 motels, 8 campgrounds, and several, restaurants .• All of
the businesses in this area are on the .Cherokee Water and Sewer
Treatment facilities. ; .' ' .
The Big Cove community lies within Swain County and extends from
its boundary on the north with the Great Smoky Mountains National
Park to the confluence of Raven Fork and,the Oconaluftee. It is
bounded on the south by the Blue- Ridge .'/Parkway, the boundary
between Swain and Jackson Counties. Most of-the Big Cove Community
is forested with a residential area in Big Cove and along Raven
Fork. Although there are no motels, restaurants or industry, there
are three trout farms and several campgrounds in this community.
None of this community is on the city water and sewer facilities.
Birdtown community extends from Soco community southwest six miles
along Highway 19. It- is bounded on the nqrth by the Great Smoky
Mountains National Park and on the west and.south by private land
in Swain and Jackson Counties. Birdtown Community is a high
residential area heavily populated with mini-farms. Tourist
related accommodations include 6 motels and 4 campgrounds. Nearly
all of this community is on the city water and sewer system.
The 3200 Acre Tract is not contiguous with the remainder of the
assessment area. It is located southwest of Birdtown and is
bounded by the Conley Creek Community of Whittier on the east and
the Shepherd Creek and Kirkland Creek Communities'of Bryson City on
the west. This community is totally residential, with no business
or industry located in this area. Agricultural activities are
minimal due to the mountainous terrain, although there are numerous
cattle farms on the surrounding State properties.
2.2 WATER RESOURCES ••
The water resources in the assessment area are shown in Figure 1.
Most of the streams originate high in the spruce-fir forests
surrounding the reservation. These streams characteristically
exhibit gradients over six percent; temperatures less than 70 F;
and stream beds covered by gravel, cobble, and boulders. These
high elevation headwaters support a thriving population of brook
trout (Salvelinus fontinalis).
Raven Fork is the major tributary draining Big Cove Community, with
two main branches being Bunches Creek and Straight Fork. It joins
the Oconaluftee River in the upper end of Cherokee. The
Oconaluftee River flows through the center of town and is joined by
Soco Creek at the lower end of town.
Soco Creek, with headwaters originating along the Blue Ridge
Parkway and the Nantahala National Forest, drains the
eastern part of the reservation. The two principal tributaries are
Jenkins Creek and Wrights Creek.
-------
Downstream from Birdtown Community, the Oconaluftee empties into
the Tuckaseigee River, a tributary of the Little Tennessee River.
Streams originating on the 3200 Acre Tract drain into the
Tuckaseigee.
There are probably less than five (5) acres of wetlands, in parcels
of 0.5 or less acres, scattered through out the reservation. All
of these areas have evolved into what are now wetlands as a result
of human activities such as road building or stream diversions.
-------
3.0 ASSESSMENT
This assessment represents the first listing of waters threatened
or impacted by NFS pollution. • •-.. , •' .
Water quality sampling has been conducted under an EPA 106 Project
(Appendix I) . In addition, a fishery survey of most of the streams
on the reservation has been conducted (Appendix., II) . Some water
quality data is available from a Clean Lakes Study carried out on
the Big Cove Ponds. -
There are no known wetlands which are being impacted by nonpoint
sources. Nor are there any known or suspected ground-water
problems caused by nonpoint sources. The extensive use of .septic
systems to treat domestic sewage represents a potential threat to
ground and surface water resources.
3.1 SOURCES OF IMPAIRMENT AND/OR THREATS TO WATER QUALITY
Siltation is the primary source of impairment "to/Tribal waters.
Due to the steep topography, any disturbance of the ground cover
has the potential of creating significant erosion problems. Major
sources of siltation have resulted from road cuts from logging
operations and access roads to residential' areas. Few, if any,
erosion control devices have been installed to check erosion in
these areas. . . • , ' , '
The ensuing discussion of sources of impairment follows the
categories and subcategories for Nonpoint Source Pollution,
numerical designation'in parentheses, as established by EPA in its
guidelines for the preparation of water quality assessment 305(b)
reports (Appendix III). , ,
3.1.1 Agriculture (10)
Non-irrigated crop production (11) : Although commercial
agriculture is not widespread on Tribal lands, many families have
gardens for personal use. Erosion and runoff of pesticides and
inorganic fertilizers have some impact on water quality.
Specialty crop production (13) : Christmas tree farming is a small,
but potentially growing agri-business on Tribal Lands. Runoff of
pesticides and inorganic fertilizers is the primary threat from
this NPS.
Feedlot (16) : One hog lot exists on Tribal lands. Several
agencies indicated they thought it might be a source of NPS
pollution.
3.1.2 Silviculture (20) •
Road construction/maintenance (23) : ' There .are no logging
operations currently underway on Tribal lands; nor are any planned
-------
in the foreseeable future. Historical logging operations
contribute to the siltation of Tribal waters. Logging decks and
roads,_which were not,properly stabilized 'to prevent erosion, are
the primary sources of this siltation. These roads are scattered
throughout Tribal lands.
3.1.3 Construction (30)
Land development (32): Development of homesites is
another source of siltation. House construction does not
incorporate best management practices (BMPs) for erosion control..
Additionally, after the homes are constructed, there is no program
to treat critically eroding areas.
3.1.4 Urban Runoff (40) •
There is no documented NFS pollution in this category on • Tribal
lands. There may be some minor impacts from this source occurring
in the town of Cherokee.
3.1.5 Resource Extraction/Exploration/Development (50)
There is no documented NFS pollution in this category on Tribal
lands.
3.1.6 Land Disposal (60)
Landfills (63): Based on visual observations, the Tribal landfill
contributes to sediment runoff during storm events.
On-site wastewater systems (septic tanks) (65) : Much of the Tribal
lands are serviced by a wastewater treatment system. However, many
homes still rely on septic tanks to treat domestic sewage. While
all septic systems represent a potential source of organic
pollution, some of these systems are suspected to be over-utilized
and as such, are NFS of organic pollution.
3.1.7 Hvdrologic/Habitat Modification (70)
In the late 1960's, three ponds were constructed on Raven Fork, and
channelization of Soco Creek was done about the same time. Both of
these activities have stabilized, and there is no NFS pollution
from these activities.
After the flood of September 1992, channel armouring of Raven Fork
was undertaken. This activity, as well as the channel scouring of
the flood itself, has not stabilized completely. Some siltation
probably occurs on Raven Fork and downstream after storm events.
3.1.8
Atmospheric deposition (81): Tribal lands are part of the Little
Tennessee River system which, according to the Tennessee Valley
Authority, is more susceptible to the effects of acidification
-------
processes than any other major tributary of the Tennessee River
basin. Although acidic precipitation has been recorded regularly
on Tribal lands, its effects have not been identified. One
commercial trout facility on Raven Fork experiences fish kills
during heavy rainfall events. While the ' kills have not been
attributed to acidic precipitation, the grower has discovered that
the fish kills do not occur if he adds lime to his intake water
during heavy rainfall events.
3.2 IMPAIRED WATERBODIES
All streams on the reservation either meet or exceed the
minimum standards for High Quality Waters as defined in the
introduction. It is the desire of the Tribe to maintain this
standard on all Tribal waters. Waterbodies assessed as threatened
or impaired by nonpoint sources are outlined in Table 3.1. This
table includes information on the cause and source of impairment
for each waterbody listed. In each case, the implementation of a
comprehensive nonpoint source management program should provide for
water quality improvements.
-------
i
CD
I
C
.2
o
6
CD
<0
O
TJ
(0
'ro
CO
CD
CO
CD
CD
co >
CO O
CO
CO
CD
cj
CO
CO
Q
CD
03
O
**"1
•§
03
0) CD
§ -i
'
co
0
o
c
03
in
co
S c
co
co
E ~
•n -^
^J tŁ3
OJ Q.
O CD
CfL CO
CO
CD
CD
C O
.2'E
CO
O3
co o
E
CD
CD
03
T3 T3 T3 T3 T3
CD CD CD CD CD
O O "CO O "CO
±i ±i D *± 3
C C ~~
O O
CO
CO
h- h- I- I-
CO
CO
co co
CD
in
CO
CO
CO CO
0 CD
0 0
0 C •— CO CO
•§.Ł 1 e §
en o Ł Ł
O VC TJ CO CO
C Q. CO 'i— 'i_
Ł 0 o .c s:
< co o: o o
0
f* ^J
O 'i=
1 S
0 .20
O C -c T3
'E .2 co 'o
CO ^Si O) *3
i E5! S S
Q.O CO Ł Q.
03
o:
T3 T3 TJ
0) 0) 0)
ca ca _o
111
LU LJJ 2
h- h- h-
CN
CO
• ^ CO
rt> ^™ "^^^
05
E=
_ 2
• *H f*
'i'S'SL
CO
o
0
c o
.2 "E
1 S>
CO O
CC
_3
00
LJJ
CO
CN*
0)
03
03
O
CO
0)
•g
en
i
CO
8
O
co
c?
CD
73 T3
B 3
fo "co
HI LU
(D -w
O C
C CD
2 E
is
.Ł CD
CO >
cu
1
CO
CD
Ł
O
O)
CO
co
_3
co
CO
CD
O
C
CO
CD
CO
CO
i
CO
CD
Ł
o
03
CD
CC
-------
sessment
Level
<
*
*
*
.Ł 8
•|=P D
1 ^J f/l
\ \JJ
"o
1
I
|
*
0
Ł
3
O
CO
i
i *
0 a
0 CO
O) Ł"
« 1
valuated
lonitored
UJ ^
H h-
^^
CO,
4—1
c
Ł LO
E co
Q.^
O CO
^w V.X
>!
0 S
73 0
•a '•=
c Q.
CO 0
-J CO
.
x co
0
CO
co
O
T3
0
8
CO
•a
o
-S
3
"co
•o
0
4-*
co
JD
CO
LU
•o -a
3 Ł
CO O
3 ±i
h- H-
CM
CO,
*-*
0)
Q.
.g
.CD
T3
0}
0
_o
0
= .0
.2 c
co O
.O
I
CO
0
O
o
u
o
co
o
I
CD
CO
2
c
CD
CN
co
u
E CD
0."-"
.2 a
o "c
CD S
•° o
•o ••=
C Q.
CO CD
_J CO
X CO
0
JC
•c
0
c .o
Q Ł
(0
._ 2s
co O
"co
u
I
CQ
O)
o
T3 T3
CD CD
<*-> 4-J
CO 05
2 2.
CD CO
> >
UJ LU
h- H
co
"co
UJ
0
-*—'
CO
I
LJU
73
0
•+- '
CO
LU
•a -a
Ł3
-2 i
i-i
^ UJ
I- I-
co
CD *-
O C
IE
It
.= CD
CO >
ŁCD
-
CN
S2-
4—1
0
a.
_g
5
0
•o
•a
co
co
ŁS
I
CO
I
'S
•a
ca
o
a:
CN
CO
0
a.
^
0
C
CO
CN
Ł2-
'c
*-~* 0
Ł1
3. "0
"S 0
fl
CO
.0
CO
0
Ł
O
.0.
^
o
JD
C
o
X
0
c?5
0
Ł
o
i
co
0
Ł
o
g>
QQ
.g
1
CO
0
I
o
*^
0
O C
'c 2
O CO
u
I
ca
0
t/2
LL
0
Ł
U
co
ca
•a
10
-------
"0
CD
.C
f?
O
u
T-
co
Ł
1 -4->
CD
Ł0
CO >
co 53
QJ 1
CO
"^
*
*
(— ^CD
•™ O
•i5^
*"• *••.
o tf)
*«=
o
He
o
CO
*
CD "S
CD CO
o»g-
CD Ł
O
O
CO
O
1
k.
1
T3
"co
"ii
LU
h-
^^^^
CN
CO
nd development
co
I
c
.g
CO
CD
Ł
O
CD
CO
o
0
CD
•a
"co
"co
LU
1-
^c-^
CO
S^i-
ad maintenance
o
o:
2
c
I
CO
iley Creek
o
o
T3
"co
"co
LU
h-
^M^
CO
Ci-
ad maintenance
j§
S
.g
CO
o
1
CO
CO
2
Ł
.0)
"35
0
CD"
2
o
•a
o
^f
_g)
ic
o
corresponding t
CO
u.
O
•*
^>
.,
X
i
•a
Ł
CO
c
.5?
'co
CD
•a
.CO
^3
CO
a.
E
o
"co
CD
5
O
M -^"
The degrei
respective
*
Ł^
•J3
13
"5
a.
CO
D_
•z.
1—
.0
CO
.CD
O
D)
CD
8
LU
0
•a
Q
a.
CO
CD
t
8
c
'«
vu
D)
'co
•a
^^
CO
o
CD
Ł
c
•a
CO
Ł
3
"co
o
CD
E
Source no
•K
t
•a
c
^H
15
[±
c
o
"o
c
o
•a
JO
"co
JO
o
0
0)
c
TD
C
o
a.
CO
Ł
u.
8
z
o
I—
co
Ł
'§
T3
CD
OB
CD
'eo
CD
T3
CO
i
k»
3
O
CO
•5
c
tD
*
11
-------
4.0 CURRENT PROGRAMS
The following description of current programs and cooperating
agencies relates to the control of nonpoint source pollution on the
Reservation. - • •
4.1 TRIBAL PROGRAMS
The Tribe has a limited number of programs in place to deal with
issues related to nonpoint source pollution.
4.1.1 General Environmental Education
The Tribe has begun an environmental education program to alert
tribal members to the various types of pollution and activities
that assist in protecting the environment.
4.1.2 Water Quality
Water quality monitoring is conducted-under" the EPA 106 project.
Both ground and surface water supplies for the Cherokee water
supply system are monitored monthly. Drinking water is monitored
daily. Wells at all new HUD housing.are tested for chemical and
bacterial contaminants. Already established wells on possessory
holdings are monitored at the request of the'landowner.
4.1.3 Waste Management
At the present time, established septic systems are not monitored
unless a complaint is made. For new housing, septic tank
installations are performed by the Tribal Water & Sewer Department
and inspected by the Indian Health Service. For compliance with
the proper amount of drainage field and storage tank capacity, the
IHS inspects both during and after installation. As-built drawings
and location of the septic system are provided to the Tribal Water
& Sewer Department.
The Tribal landfill is scheduled for closure in October 1993.
4.1.4 Erosion and Sediment Control
A sediment catch basin has been constructed at the Tribal landfill
to control sediment loss during storm events.
There is no formal program in place for tribal lands or possessory
holdings. These activities are carried out on a voluntary basis.
SCS provides assistance with these programs when requested (see
section 4.2). , -
12
-------
4.2 USDA SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
The USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS) is the technical agency
responsible for providing on-site assistance to land users in
planning and application of soil and water conservation measures.
SCS works under memoranda of understanding with the soil and water
conservation districts. SCS has cooperated with the Tribe and
provided technical assistance in the development of soil and water
conservation plans.
The Tribe is working with SCS on stabilization of an abandoned
logging road on Big Witch Creek. This project is funded through
the Southwestern N.C. Area Resource Conservation and Development
(RC&D) Council under Cherokee Tribal Trust Lands Project Agreement
69-4532-2-549
SCS is preparing a soils map for the Reservation. The Tribe
expects this information will be a valuable resource in the
development and implementation of their nonpoint source management
program.
4.3 SOUTHWESTERN N.C. AREA RC&D COUNCIL
The Tribe is a sponsor of the Southwestern N.C. Area RC&D Council
and a contributor to the Southwestern N.C. RC&D Plan. Through this
plan and related funding, conservation related projects are
accomplished within the RC&D Area. The Tribe has utilized RC&D
planning and funding to accomplish conservation projects and
expects this cooperative relationship to continue.
SCS is assisting the Tribe in the development of an experimental
trout waste system. This project is funded through the
Southwestern N.C. Area RC&D Council.
4.4 SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
The Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD) carry out erosion
prevention and control measures within their districts. SWCD
conduct surveys, investigations, and research relating to the
character of soil erosion. They recommend preventive and control
measures, as well as disseminate information concerning such
preventive and control measures. SWCD -administer the North
Carolina Agriculture Cost-Share Program, which helps landowners
improve their level of on-farm management. This program is
designed to reduce the input of agricultural nonpoint source
pollution into the water. ,
4.5 USDA AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND CONSERVATION SERVICE
The Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) is administered by USDA
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS).
13
-------
This program offers cost sharing for soil, water, .and forestry
practices of long-term benefit. In coordination with ASCS, SCS
provides technical assistance to landowners and land users under
this program.
4.6 BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) has responsibilities for
all properties held in trust by the U.S. Government for Indian
Tribes. These responsibilities are set forth in 25 CFR Part. 150-
250. The BIA will provide technical assistance and resources when
available.
4 . 7 INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE
Indian Health Service (IHS) has the responsibility of providing
health services to Federally Recognized Indian Tribes. IHS
provides resources to insure sound public and environmental health
services. Permitting and inspection of septic tank installation at
new building sites is handled by this agency for the reservation.
4.8 FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION
Farmers Home Administration (USDA-FmHA) provides resources for soil
and_ water development, conservation, community water storage
facilities, water and wastewater disposal systems, watershed
protection, and housing rehabilitation including septic systems.
4.9 NORTH CAROLINA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE
The North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service (NCCES) is
responsible for carrying out informational and educational
functions relating to agricultural and natural resources, home
economics and nutrition, 4-H and youth, and community development.
This program provides water quality education which stresses an
awareness and understanding of NPS pollution problems.
4.10 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is responsible for conducting soil
and water conservation programs. TVA is considered a source agency
for the design and development of NPS pollution control projects.
1.4
-------
5.0 PROCESS FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Agency and public involvement in this process will be openly
solicited as required in '40 CFR 25. In conjunction with the
submission of this document to EPA, a notice of the document's
availability will be published in the local newspaper.
Nonpoint • source pollution management often requires the
coordination of numerous agencies and organizations which may be
affected by the NFS Management Plan. The Tribal Planning Board
which is comprised of both appointed and elected officials and the
Tribal Environmental Office will have the responsibility to solicit
input from the various agencies and tribal members concerning the
Best Management Practices.
Agencies and organizations which are cooperating with the Tribe in
this assessment are listed in Table 5.1. These agencies have been
contacted concerning identification of assistance programs and
BMPs. Their continued cooperation will be requested during the
specific project identification phase of the program.
5.1 TRIBAL ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICE
The Tribal Environmental Office conducts environmental assessments
and coordinates with applicable federal agencies and departments
relative to development projects on Reservation lands. ^ The
Director of the Tribal Environmental Planning Office provided input
into identifying waters which are impacted, or threatened by.
nonpoint source pollution. This office also provided input into
prioritizing waters for NPS treatment measures.
5.2 TRIBAL FISH & GAME MANAGEMENT
The Tribal Fish & Game Management is responsible for management of
the fish and wildlife resources on Tribal lands. The Director of
this office provided information on waters which are impacted or
threatened by nonpoint source pollution.
5.3 TRIBAL WATER & SEWER DEPARTMENT
The Tribal Water & Sewer Department provided information concerning
the Tribal water and sewer system. As funding permits, the Tribal
water and sewer system will be extended to serve those sections of
the reservation in Jackson and Swain counties. In^addition, this
department has identified a need for a position to handle
permitting and compliance.
5.4 BIA FORESTRY SECTION
The BIA Forestry Section identified BMPs which are suitable for
15
-------
addressing NFS pollution relating to silviculture. BIA foresters
discussed locations of erosion problems attributed silviculture
operations.
5.5 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
TVA provided input about water quality in bodies of water
downstream from Tribal lands. TVA has developed educational
programs relating to NFS pollution of surface and ground water
resources.
5.6 U.S. SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
The district conservationist and civil engineer serving the
Cherokee Reservation provided information about erosion problems
existing on Tribal lands and applicable BMPs. This office
discussed plans relative to Tribal lands, which are listed in the
Southwestern N.C. Area Resource Conservation and Development
Council Plan.
5.7 SWAIN COUNTY SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
The technician with Swain County Soil & Water Conservation District
provided information concerning erosion problems existing on Tribal
lands and applicable BMPs. This office provided information about
Federal and State assistance programs.
5.8 U.S. AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND CONSERVATION SERVICE
The Swain County ASCS office provided information on federal cost
share programs available for treatment of erosion problems.
-------
Table 5.1 Agencies which cooperated in the preparation of the
NonPoint Source Assessment Report.
Tribal Environmental Planning Office
Tribal Fish & Game Management
Tribal Water & Sewer Department
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Forestry Section
Tennessee Valley Authority
U.S. Soil Conservation Service
Swain County Soil & Water Conservation District
U.S. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
-------
APPENDIX I
Water Quality Data from the Cherokee EPA 106 Project
18
-------
Ci
CJ)
^.
"3
~?
•§
CO
^
.Ł2
«*>"\
«—
I c
S. "**
o> to
e -»
fi
c w
•3 1
II
^j Y**
OS Q3
m iZ
to
'to
>M
10 1
^
.0
CO
•••J
D3
C
Tn
|2
33
iZ
^
Q.
a
co Ł
OL_
JT
Q O
UL —
8
Ł I
O o
h- te
0
O
Q
O
m
S T- rt CN
•g t- CO -<3-
,=J 0 C) 0
H
~^ O) CO CO O) CO
CD CO 1^
Q*O CN O CO T-
O) T~ O T"~ CO CD
o
Q
a. co o o co
E ^~ "^
CD
H-
^^ C35 CO CO O) CO
CO CO 1^
"3 O CN O CO T-
cn^" o '" co o
Ł "~
d
Q
E ^ co o o co
CO • T- T—
CD CL
•fc E
CO a
^J CN co m m o
CO J^ ^ ?N ^ CO
Q co co co ^" Tf
co in co o ^t
•* CO °°. ^~ CO
CN O T-
O5 CN CD
CO CN CN
T- CO
CO T- T-;
T— T— CN
^ rj- O ^" T-
r- CO CN CO CN
O O O O O
CN CO C» CO
oo ^*"» r*** r*"1*
co Tf CD in
CO CO h- CO
co in m m CD
CO CO ^3" CO T~
CO* Is- Is-
^. ^j. (VJ ^J. ,_ ^-
O) C35 CO CO CO O5
co co in co ^ in
t** O CO CO h- CN
^ CN CN ^ CN C3
in 25 u5 co co ^
i
to
•A;
co
^
^2
CO
mfn*t
CJ)
.c
"to
)2
33
IE
CN
Q.
V.
S i
\^ ^m
-
cd co co' r^ r^
CTCN O CN f- CO
CD O T~ O CO CO
Ł,"" 'r-
d
d
E O co o o co
CO • T- v-
co Q.
J= E
CO (B
o CN co in m o
CO ^™ T~ CN ^ CO
Q CO CO CO -5f TT
CN co in co r-
CO T- r^- CN CN
T- CO T- CN
co in co
C35 CO CJ)
co co
CN rt CN
co S ?coS
O O O O 0
CN 00 CO O
co co r**
CO •«-; rf CN
N: edited
CO Tf CO CO
CO in h- CN O5
co in co co
in co in in T- co
CO CO CO CO CO h-
in ^ in Is- co in
^^ ^2 00 GO ^^ ^^
T^ ^^ ^^ ^f^ ^^ ^^
^rt ^O ^O C^D f p ^^
-------
I
en!
«•
"co
c,
.0
CO
O5
.C
"S3
•o
CD
iZ
n
CL
CO
"s i
"o
o
1 1
"o
O
Q CN CO CO
Ł2 T- T- T-
to
'co
."2 CN T- rf cocococom 15
€ T "* d Td^d^ S
300 O O 0 <
r"" O
CD
IT- CN CD h- O5 T- CO T- OO
r*- co co N- r*» co co
5* CO -3- Tj- T- CO t-CN^Tf
O5O OOO5O5 CO 00 r-- CO
d
Q
cL cooooo co co f1-- co
fl T— T— T— T— T— T-
Ł
^T- CNCOh-Oir^-CMT-N-T-t-
f^ co co r*"" ^^• 10 ^** co r**» p***
^^ 05
— JCO^^T-COCOCOCOOOCNrf .Ł
D3O d O O5 O5 CO CO CO CO "S3
d 2
Q il
Ł^5 oooooococo-^-incoin
CDx T- T- T— T- T- T— T— T—
0 CL
CO ^0
^cNoominoN-ooooor^cN ^i
Caj^^CNT^COT^CNCNT^CNjCS Q.
Qcococo^-^tfjinincocD^ CO
g E co CD o T- T-
cu ,0 d in
"o
O
2 § <Ł> cq co
.0,0 d co co
1— s= co in CN
0
O
S ^5
CQ ^ ^
— O5O5O5 COTtl^OOCO
^T-;COCO ^d^'-N0?
3 d o' d d d d d
iT-OOCOOOh- COO500O5
Q. • • • • •
P~ OO P— CO n» ^~
-^<<:*;T~;eNlfi.(35 °?T^'^T;J'
C5OOOOO r^ co Is- co
d
ci
a. OT-T-O5 T-comcoin
1 """
^^ T-icocoooi^in1^ mo5^
h~ od i^-co'co co' co
J~Tr T-; CN m O5 O5 CO CO O5 O5 00
O5OOOCO CO [^ CO
d
d
ŁU OT— T— 05^-Ttmcocoin
1 1
CO c5
®cNooininoN-ocoooh-CN
^ST-T-CNT-COT-CNCNT-CNO
QcococorfTi-ininincocot^
20
-------
en
'si
Lab Anal
D)
1
1
iZ
m
%
"co E
f\ CZ
^j 2T
ŁŁ
o
O
™~" C
CO C
•4— • *.-
0 J5
1~ ™
O
O
Q
CO
15 co co rj-
3 d d d
5 CM CN v
N- CD !>-• -^f in co,
co ^ ^ TT 05 c;
d odd <
.Q
CO
CN4 O3 CO O5
CO ^^ ^^ ^^
t^ r^ co
h- m CD CD
co in ^* m o)
CD' iri r^ co cd
.^K. ^^ f
CJJ ' C^3 ^^* 00 CO O5 tiSm
CO CO N- N- ^» CO
•a
.CD
T- T- 1- T- T- T-
t^ O 00 CO h- CN CO
CO E CN T- CO CO T-
Ł Ł ^ S "'
o
o
jS E co in co
on CN co -^
1- *= t>- co co
o
O
Q T- co co
O ^ co ^
CD d
^CNt-T- t-CNrfCNt-
^t^com ^rcococo,.:
3 o' d d o' d d d
~s CO"^COCOCO COOOOO N»
^** ^o co r** <^ ^w ^* ^^
!UcN in^-T-in cot-Ttco
O) o o o co oo f""- co ^ co
d
d
a. T-T-T-O r>-coincD
H
^co -«toococoin oJCNv-
r-^ co co i^ in CD N! i^
_icNinT-T-incj5CNr>~coc5
D5 O O O CO CO COh»COCO
C T- T— T-
d
d
EO T-T-T-oco<5fcocoin
COx T-T-T-T-^-V-T-T-t-
Ł E
CO CD
jjcNcoininoocoeoh-CN
76^-I^CNT^COCNJCN^CNCO
QcfScocorfTfinwcocoi^
21
-------
.CO
>.
CO
C
.0.
CO
TO
_c
to
2
CD
il
^
Q.
CO
co E m CM co co eo
8,0 ^^^^^
"o
O
Is § °9 "J n.
O O CO Is- *"•
H- s= co CN m
o
O
Q ^j. ,_ (o
o oi ^
CQ o
.Ł2
>>
2|»-COCO CM Tf CO Tf m "CO
•Q CN ^" ^* ^S-S-CO^J C
ijo'o'o' o'o'o'ci ^
1- .a
CO
^TfCOOJCOTt; CMt^I^CO'
r** co ^* ^* co ^* ^^ I***
_J CN CO O3 O5 T— h»COTt'?J'
TOO O O h- CO h» N- CO
d
d
Q. T- t— CN o r^-i^inco
CD
H-
•t ^f cocjico^co ^^»-^
^ TO
_JCMCOO5C3)T-O)CMCNCOt^ .Ł
TOO OOlh^CO CO h- CO CO CO
d 2
d il
EO T_T_CNjOcr},^.t^.Tt.IA
CDQ. T"T-^-^^-'-T-''--r-
J= E
CO CD
1-
jJcMcoinmoococoN-cM oo
CO^^C^T^COCMC^T-OvJCO Q.
Qcococo^-'
•Ccoinm cNf^-^^o)
3OOO OOOOO
^in COI^I^CN cocoh-jcq
f- h- h- CO N. N- N.
^J CO T-COCOCO O5r-COin
O5 ^3 ^3 O3 00 CO ^^ CO ^^ CO
d
d
Q. r-CMCMO r-COCOCO
E T-T-T-T- T-T-T-T-
03
H-
^•S^SSSS ^S1^
^cOT-cocococoT-incocM
TOOOOcocococor^coco
d
d
gO T-CMCMOTj-tncOCOCO
CD Q.
S c
CO 03
1-
^cNcominoococor^cN
tS ^ ^ CN ^ CO CN CN ^ CM O
22,
-------
.—
to
>,
CO
<^
•Q
CO
O5
•Ji
C/)
TJ
4
CO
0.
CO
co E
CD Ł
"o
o
co E
O o
1- &
o
o
Q
0
CQ
l2 ^
p™"
""•" 1^0
^^»
J^
"010
d
Q
Q.
CD
H
™"* L^^
^^1
=! "^
coo
•
o
Q
EO
s g-
CO OJ
« CN
CO 3T
Q co
CO
O5
r-
CN
o'
CN
O)
***
CM
o
CN
V"
CO
CO
5
o'
i- O>
CO 1^
CO T-;
O) CO
CM CM
r- CO
CO h-
CO f-^
CO CO
CM CM
T- T-
m in
CM •«-
CO ^
0
r-
CO
T—
O)
^
CO
T-
^~
o
CO
CM
CM
CO
0
CO
in
CO
^
""
o
25
CM, CO
CO
'co
CD co in o> "co
N- <* in 05 c
o o' o' o <
^2
CO
-P- CD cq in
oo ^"* f** r***
N^ i^ CO CO
^^. CO ^^ GO
GO ^*"» h** CO
CM C33 h-
1^ CO
CD
C35 O> r^ CO .E
h~ ^ CO CO CO
•a
CD
iZ
CO CO CO CO
T- T— T— V
o
CO CO N- CM T-
CM 5^ C^ O Q.
in co co ^ [CO
co E
o Ł
CD O
O~™
O
"co E
"o ^
r~ **^
"Q
O
Q co
O co
CD d
~ rf co CO r|-
-g TT ^r CO CO
300 0 0
^T- co i** co, co
GO h*** r*^ GO
^O O CM T-; [^
CD T~ ^ CO CO N!
^
d
Q.CM CO CM T- CO
Ł T- T- T- V- -^
H
^_T- CO h- CO CM T-
GO r**» i**** co r*1*'
Q^O O CM T- CvJ CO
CD GO GO O5 GO
c?
Q
EOcNCOCMT-Tj-CO
g) Q.'" *" *" ^~ ^ ^~
tO CD
^J oo in m o o co
nj r^ c^ ^ co c^ c^
Q co co ^- rf in in
in
T—
m
o
in
CO
CO
,_
^
O)
Is-
CO
""
CO
CD
CO,
^
co
in
CJ
CD
^^
^^
^*
T-
^
O)
CO
^
^
CN
CO
^r-
^"
CO
CM
CO
^S«
,_•
^^*
CO
CO
^
"*"
CM
J3
23.
-------
CO
'.
CD
C
<
.a
CD
D3
.E
"to
h-
33
o
LL
CL
ĄL
~% i
O •—
"o
O
5 E
O O
h~ ~
O
O
Q
O
CQ
Si^m
•S ". d
Ł°
5 CM O) CO
00 ^— Is—
^cq CM ^r
TO O O CO
&*~ "~
d
ci
cico co co
2^ CM C5 CO
00 Is— Is—
^?CO CM Tf
O)O O OO
Ł T~ T~
C)
Q
E ^ CO CO CO
CD • T— T- T—
CO CL
*z Ł
CO CD
1-
3 oo in in
CD J^ CM •«-
Q co co Ti-
co co in •«-; O
^~ C35 CO CO Łp
0 CM CO Ł
CM CM r-
O CO Tf
aj
in
t CN T-; Is-
CO
"co
^^
h- in ^ co T- "CD
co Is- in co c
d d o" d <
CD
i
^^
T-; co in in CN
CO N- CO CO CM
CO ^» CO ^— CO
T— co r*- oo ^~
T- m ^ T- N.
^^ ^f ^^ ^^
O)
CO C35 Tf CD N- O5 .Ł
OO 00 Is— f*- OO Is— CO
|2
i
"53
U.
T- Tt- CO (»- Tf Is-
V™ V* T" T^ V" ^™"
CN
o o oo oo r*- CN v
CO CN CM T- CsJ O Q.
•^r in in co S ?^ CO
"CD E
CJ ^~
"o
O
CD Ł
^™< ^~
^J" ^K
l~~ ~
"o
O
Q
O
CQ
•2 co co
Sod
21 T-; CO
CO* CO*
G'T-; CN
"c5jd o"
E "*" "•"
d
d
cico co
Ł
^T- CO
co co
^T- CM
TOO O
d
d
E O co co
CD • T- T-
CD Q.
•b E
CO CD
1-
Ł co in
Q co co
CO T- Is-
co ,_:,_:
o"
^ ^" C75 ^" CN
Q co in co ,_:
odd
CO CO T^ Tf TT •<-
1s- f- CO Is- Is- Is-
T-; CM CO T- Tf CM
f^3 ^Q Is— fQ ^- CO
CO *•• CO CO Is— Is—
CO CO CO CO CO CO
^ h- Tf h- CO CO
T- CN T- CN C35 O Is-
GO CO O5 GO ^^ 00 ^^
CO T- Tf CO CO ^f f*.
m o o cb co r*. CN
rr rf in in co co h-
24
-------
CD Ł
O
-------
.co
'to
"I
^
JQ
CO
D)
_C
"55
H
•o
CD
E
CL
CO
s 1
CD Ł
"o
O
Is s
"o o
H~ Its
o
0
Q
o
CQ
is
5 d
r-
*5
x-j^
"B)d
,Ł,"*"
d
Q
Q.Tf
Ł
X T-
^00
^J"T-
O) O
E."-
d
Q
EO^
CO • rJ-
CD Q.
1 Ł
CO CD
H-
3 oo
co ;-
Q co
u5
d
CO
00
CO
cri
•t
CO
CO
CO
O)
?
in
CM
co
•^ CO
CN T-
cd cd
Tf CO
•^- co
h.1^
CN T-
00 CO
•^- co
in o
^ Ł2
CD CO
O
T—
co
CO
d
in CD
d d
oo
CO
CO
O5
in
OO T-
l»- CO
Tf CO
T— T~
O 00
CN CN
in «5
O5
o
O5
T—
CO
d
CN
CN
CO*
N-
in
^
CO
CO
00
CO
in cq
CO ^
^
CO T-
(^ 00
CN r-
T—
cq
CD T-
cq
d
i^ co'
CN CO
1^ CO
CO 1^-
CS O3
jsj CO*
in "t
CO CO
Tf Is-
Is- CN
CN O
co r-
t/3
'co
15
•^
^^^
CO
••J
O5
,c
"co
|2
"CD
L_
CO
QL
CO
CO
0
~Ł
.0
H-
co
_u-
co
E
"o
0
cz
o
Ł1
"o
0
Q T-
O 05
CQ d
•1 «
-O CN
,3 °
I—
n:
a.
^
"oj
E,
d
d
Q.
K
•k05
^iri
^Joo
"^j js.
Ł
d
Q
o^.
I"
CD
1-
3 o
^3 CN
Q m
co
O5
d
O5 CO
CO CN
o o
CN T-
00 N^
1*-^ CO
en co
,_
^
00 CO
f*— Is*
m co
T- T-
00 00
CN T-
m co
«.
"^
CD rf
CN O5
O 0
CO
CO CO
(^ CO
o) N. :
CO CO
CD* CO
co in
CO Is-
CO CO
T— T-
Is- CN
CN O
CO ?^
-------
l"75
CO
CN
i S
o
O
CO t
O t.
Łi
o
O
00
oS
CD
CN
CN
GO
O
CO
CN
CN
CO
00
o
CO
co
CO
CO
CO
CO
CN
CO CN
o ,_:
CO
O ^
CD
oo
CN
O CN
to-,
O
Ci
O Q.
T- CD
-3 CO
co
CO TO
"1 ••=
Ł w
CJ^
8s
O CD
co o:
.
- CO CD
tO
-CM
CD!
3OOOOOC)O
,< 2
cc
CO N. OJ
1 co' h* (**
CN CO CO
r^ co'
cs '-Q ,_:,_: ^j ,_:,_:
CN CO 00 ^t T^ 00
'CO t^ (^ 1
_JCOU5CNT-O5COrl-
O) CO 00 CO 00 Is-
CO
Q.OT-C35T— CO O
CN CN T- CN
CN
CO
.CD
Q
EO
CO x
Ł E
CO CD
CD
CO
CO
CO CO 00 !> CO
Q.O
CN CM
r- CO T- O
CN T- CN CN
O
O)
Q
|0
CD oL
CV5 CD
<2 O
CN
0) O
T- O
CN
CO)
CO
27
-------
1CO
5^
CD
CC
OJ
"S3
2
CD
il
CO
Q.
CO
8 i
Łi
o
CJ
3 1
Ł v2
"o
O
Q T- O5 CO in CO
\J co co eb •
m odd
.52
T3 >*
s"~JSS2r~:S!i!T~COCNCN' «
•" CO CO CO N.. ŁQ (—
^, f f ^""" ^^^ 1 ^ \^^ ^^^ ^_
3 o o d d o' ^
•~ ^
_j
^i^ in co ivi N: r>: i^' (vj
D5 CO CO h- CO CO' CO* CO CO
d
d
Q-^ O O O5 T- O O OJ
OJ
-g_CN N. OJ T-; CN
h» CO t**- 1*^
^-. en
-J CO CO CO CO .Ł
DJ CO CO* 1o
c 03
d TJ
d .2
E P co r*. co co
CD CLT~ ^~ *~ ^~
CO CD
•S^^SlT ° CNCO^t
Qf^t^f^i^cocooiajoJ CO
2 § co m co P
0) O CO ^ hJ t
u. ~ to o fŁ
O CN r-
P
S E co P o
O O CO t O
1- S - co 2 co
"5 CN r- ^r-
p
Q *- . w •«• in •«•
O CO CD CN •
ca d d d
1
•Q
•Ł r^T-'cNir^TrcNiT^T-:
H
D) CO CO 1^ CO CO CO 1^ CO CO'
d
d
Q.COOT-OJT— OT— OJ>-
SCNCNCNT-CMCNCNT-T-
H
^_CO OJ T- CN CN CN CO
N- CO ^ h>« ^ ^ ^»
^00 CO rt CO CO
O) ^ ^00 CO l*»
d
d
C ^ •^^ OJ 00 CO OJ
rt? Q- ^" T>" *" '^
— E
CO CD
J—
«0^^^ o CNCO
^^ N* N*. N^ Nk on ff\ sr\ /^% «^
-------
tO
•fi
l!
1
CO
O)
1
2
iZ
10
0.
CO
II
"o
0
Is §
"o
O
85
03
•o
.2
I CO 1*.
°-|^ w
COCO CO
d
d
Q.CO o
CM* ^^ ^^
03
•JLa CO
CL •
^^»
^
COCO
J,
d
d
CO • CN
IO
co ^^ co ^^ ^* r^ ^^
r** co co r^- co co
^^ C3) C3 C3 ^^ CO ^^
^^ ^^" ^^ ^^J ^^ V™ V*
CO Is- T- T- CN CN
co ^^ ^^ ^^ r***
CO
00 CO CO 00 CŁ
|2
"3
iZ
O) CO CO O
T- T- T- CN
«fr T- O CN CO CO
S |
"o
O
•2 E
"o
0
Q O5 -r- CO LO CO
O CO CO Tj- CN ,_:
CO O O O O
•°co
IN""N
^^m QQ ^35 ^* ^^ CO ^O ^^ ^^ CO
^^ ^O C^? ^^ Cj? ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
CO CO I** CO h-^COCO
d
d
d.CO OOCOOO^r-COCO
J"T-_ CN CO CO t^
COCO CO h»
d
d
EU^ ocoocoo^*
CO -CM T-r-T-T-CNr-
Q) Ct
jSot^^T- O CNCO
29
-------
CO
'to
"co
c
.a
CO
03
.Ł
"53
03
2
03
il
a.
CO
co E
i?si
UB •*""
O
U
"co E
O Q
1 vŁI
"o
0
82
m
-2 co
K-
^ •*
^ CO
Oil"-
d
d
d. CO
ECNI
0
h-
"a.10-
^oq
ocd
d
d
EO^.
$ d.™
-Ł E
CO 0)
I-
.2 0
co zr
Q ^
O
1—
t-
co
CM
CO
00
CM
N-
r^-
in
co
oo
f>».
co
CO
o
O5
CO
in
CO
CO
^
o
CM
CM
^^
^^»
^^»
O5
"~
CM
r»-
m
d
m
"*
N-
CD
CO
CO
co
CO
Tf
CO
(35
T—
CO
^
0 0
CO T-
co co
P m
1— (>>.
~Z. CD
|- CM
oo co
C5 ^~
CM Is* CO <35 CM
CO CO CO CM CM
CD CM rr co m
co r^» ^^ ^» r***
O5 h- CO ^" 5^1
^^ ^* r^ '^o co
O O CM CO CO
CM CM CM T- T-
CO ^ CO ^'
t- in
co r^:
CO T-
f- CM
O CM CO
r^. co rr T- CM
CO CO O5 O) O3
CO
'co
"co
c
o
CO
«J
O)
_c
to
2
0)
E
oo
a.
CO
"S E <3) i^. i-
o t in i^ co
.•J5 Ł CN CO CO
U_ :=
o
o
"co E O
On '-
Ł Ł -z.
o I-
o
8^ 5
m d
~ co oo ^?f
i- co csi co
^_
^ CM co m
"^ CO
^_^
O5 CO CO h~-
d /
d
dm o o
j= CM CM CM
o
H
^^ n
^°° m.
O) CO
d
d
EOuj o
g.Q.^ N
« E
CO -'
Tf 00
CO
O 0
CM CM
CM m
^t
co
O)
co h-
?^ CO
^
o'
^_
<35
^
O5
(35
T—
^
T—
00
O5
O
CO
CO
co
^™"
^
CM
^
CO
CM
CM
CM
CO
^
,_
CM
oS
o
CM
CM
in m
CO CM
r^ eo
^
CD CO
CO OO
O5 CO
T— r-
m
CM CO
T^ CM
G5 (35
-------
.Ł2
>
"cc
c
X
cc
s
*fr*
1
2
o
iZ
0)
0.
CO
co E m O o
03 Ł •<* 2* n
8
11 |, . B-
f— * ~ ^~ CO
"o *~ "*"
O
Q CO CO CO
O T-' ' ^ r^
CQ o
en
' -r, '>
— COCDT-^inco CO
•gcncocDoocoin c
s o' d d d d d ^
l~ XJ
ro
X^
-------
E co o o t*- co
n T- iv. Tf CO CO
>2 CN co rr
o
CN
JoEooPoo o
CN4
o
T- CN CN T- C»4
CO
'coi
•si1! -o
< I !i5 d d d d ^~ d
CO
o
o
O
ca
I— t— O O •'if
Z Z r- co in
- CN N- CN O f- C35
- °°. T-: T-: T-: T-:
CO
ca!
•— «*rf «»rf I ^- V'rf «*rf **4 * ^
-P—:ic,-:co^f^h*
^- ^J . O • T~ . .
3 O O O O
CM
CJ
i
O)
CO
.Ł.0
O (0
Q.-J
E
to ?
CO -^
ffi U_
co
I
Q.
CN CO_ Tf
^ J^-' CO
CM CO CO •«• CO CO
O
Q
. CO CO CO O O O O
W
o r*.
-------
jo E
S o
a> Ł
E •«• CN O o in o
"* "* •*- ^ *-
co
o
*-
co
o
O
CN z: 21 z: a> co
I- i- i- CN co
O
w
o
O
O
«•
•co: 2
CO' —T-CNCOCNCOTfCO
u_
.Q
CO
O5
^?
(0
flj
^^3
03
iZ
CO
Q.
CO
3 O O O O O O
I—
t*^ O5 CO CO N- CO ^f
CO' CO' h~ t^ f>i CO*
X
Q.
^j" O3 ^ CO CN N« O5 T—
~QjC35 T- O T- O O CN
E,
6
d
. in CN co en oj co co
Q.T- T- T-
E
^
in cq -^ in co
Q.
j" CO CN in OT CO
-| t^cnr- ^
d
d
Ło ?coto ^^
CO o
CD c
±: C
55(2
... O CO t-
JS CO T^ ^- Tf O T-
c:
^J
CO
O3
^C
"S3
2
E
2
CO
U_l
3
1-
00 O T—
CO CO I*-'
x
Q.
— .fSj ,_ ^.
"B)0" ^ °
E,
d
d
. co co in
t"""""
flj
^M ^H ^^
Q.
""J* CO O (*»•
"ojco co oo'
d
d
in o co
IT'
?5 ••
„ o co T-
co co T~ T~
Q r- T^ T-
co ^ co T-
^** ^*« CO
T- CO 00 O)
*~ 0 CD T^
T— T- r—
CO O) O) O
in CN cq
•^- CO CN
CN ^ "*"
co h» co
Tf 0 T-
^ ^ ^ CN
33
-------
co E cn co
" ^ CM -"fr
"o
O
o
o in o
CM CO T-
CD
-; co
CN r
en
COi
c
-Q
CO
D3
"55
TJ
03
LL
in
Q.
CO
3 O O
1—
i.00.«
CD CO
CM O21 CM CM
h- CO* Is- CO*
_J ^ CO CO4 T- h- |v. CO
~O>CD O O ^ O O T-1
^ ,_„_ ^^^
q
d
Q.CO T- in O CO CD O
o
CM co
-
O)
co
co_ cq
CO T-
•
jg F
CO CD
O CO -r-
coEocoooo
So'r"'*'5:f'^T-
^ j2 CM TT CM
"o
O
o
c
CD o
eni
"en>
coi •=
2!
•Ł cq i^-;
3 C3 O
O O
en
•«- CM "W
2
T- T- T- CM
N- CO
'CO CO
r^ CO T-; CO
Is* CO Is*
O)CD
,Ł
o
d
cLco
E'-
•^t CD CO T- CO
d o o ^~ ^
T- in co o N. o
co
_J CM i- CO CM
"B)O CD O) CM
q
d
.
ffl
„ O 00
3 CO T-
CM -r-
^ CM
h- CO
O T-
-------
APPENDIX II
Fish Species Present in Tribal Waters
compiled from Cherokee Fish and Game Management Reports
-------
CQ
1
O
5
O
o
en
c
jjj;
CQ
Q.
2
•o
CO
CO
O»
c
3
0
CO
JŁ
o
6
CO
§
"c
'5
X
!
%i^>
i
i
v^
li^
X
x
X
Rainbow Trout
1
i
!
1
X
X
X
Brook Trout
j
j
i
!
1
i
1
!
Banded Sculpin
i
j
|
:
!
!
j
j '
i
1
i
i
1
t
X
X
Longnose Dace
i
i
i
X
Creek Chub
i
X
Rosyside Dace
j
X
Blacknose Dace
X
i
i
i
.1
i
X
X
X
Q.
Q.
CO
c
'5.
3
O
CO
i_
0
2
CO
CD
CQ
fc
I
O
co
CQ
0
1
CO
CQ
O
1
o
c
CQ
0
|
CQ
0
CO
CO
T;
,
!
i
X
X
X
i i i
1 , .
I
X
1 ;
j
1
1
1
1
j
X
X
X
1
'
X
j
j
!
i
4
1
X
!
1
X
X
X
i
i
X
i
I
i i,
j
XX
i
' * '<
x
u-
X
*.~:
X
X
I
X
X
'X
I
X
X
X
1
X
1
dl
.Ł
t
o
— .Ł}• F co •=
IS
s.
CO
0)
(O
o
c
o
l
ci
Q-
«- o
«J CO
CQ CO
co nj
° •_ -e
l
5 to si
"o §
8= 2
o: 2 o
0)
Q.
Q.
TO ^ C
g
H
3 2
CO CQ
36
-------
oi !
J?l ix
i
I I
I
I .1
(D
! i
Of I
ill!
i.
! I
i !
i i i
! I
CD!
f I
t i
s
to
CC
CD
O
QL ,_
$
to
*- O
37
-------
j,;
UL
O>
2
CO
i_
o>
o
o:
6
c
CO
E
•o
S.
LL
i
s.
6
o
CD
O)
Ł
O
i
1
Ł
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
x
— — .
X
x
X
X
X
x
X
X
x
X
-
.„
x
X
:_^
1
1
X
-
"
X
x
X
1 „
X
X
X
1
X
•
X
X
X
X
••
X
•
X
x
X
•
'
x
x
X
*
X
..-, ,
X
-
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
;
1
',
\
!
1
i
!
X
ScOKCDOHO^i
38
-------
m
0
to
il
5
*-l
*C
5»
0
f
to
«
CO
e
8
H
Ł
I
33
0
1
<
i
i
*
X
s
x
X
X
1
1
!
i
X
t
i
X
1
1
1
i
1
X
X
*
X
X
X
1
i
X
,
j
X
X
- ;
i
X
X
X
i
!
X
X
X
,
1
!
i
i
i
X
1
i
1
i
i
I
X
i
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
X
!
:
X
!
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
i
•I .
1
• j
i
I
1
;
J
i
1
1
I \
! |
t
i !
i '
i
x;xx
1
39
-------
Creeks not sampled:
Becks Branch
Soggy Hill Branch
Board Cove Branch
Spread Cove
Bradley Branch
Indian Creek
Grassy Branch
Owl Branch
McCoy Branch
40
-------
APPENDIX III
Major Nonpoint Source Pollution Categories and Subcategories
41
-------
Eastern Band of Cherokee
Indians
Qualla Reservation
Section 319
Nonpoint Source Management
Report
-------
-------
Qualla Reservation
Section 319
Nonpoint Source Management Program
prepared by
Fish & Wildlife Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 241
Whittier, NC 28789
for
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
Tribal Environmental Office
Cherokee, NC 28719
July 1,1993
-------
. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of Tables
1.0 DESIGNATION OF MANAGEMENT AGENCY
2.0 CERTIFICATION OF LEGAL AUTHORITY
3.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
5.0 SIGNIFICANT NONPOINT SOURCES
IV
1
2
3
6.0 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IDENTIFIED TO CONTROL SPECIFIC
NONPOINT SOURCES
6.1 EROSION CONTROL
6,
6,
6.1.1
6.1.2
6.1.3
,1.4
.1.5
6.1.6
6.1.7
6.1.8
6.1.9
6.1.10
6.1.11
6.1.12
6.1.13
6.1.14
6.1.15
6.1.16
6.1.17
6.1
6.1.19
6.1.20
6.1.21
6.1.22
6.1.23
Debris Basin (Sediment Basin) 6
Diversion 6
Grade Stabilization Structure 6
Grassed Waterway or Outlet 6
Land Smoothing and Leveling 8
Surface Drainage . 8
Critical Area Planting 8
Grassed Filter Strip 8
Mulching 8
Tree Planting 8
Rock Check or Filter Dam 9
Hay Bale Barrier 9
Silt Fence 9
Temporary Diversion Dike. Berm, and/or Ditch 9
Permanent Diversion and Interceptor Ditch 9
Broad-based Dip 9
Temporary Vegetation 9
18 Permanent Vegetation
Soil Amendments
Regrading
Wetland/Riparian Area Preservation
Created Wetland
Vegetated Buffer Strip/Greenbelt/Riparian
Areas .
6.1.24 Lined Waterway or Outlet
10
10
10
10
10
10
6.2 WASTE WATER CONTROL
11
6.2.1 Fertilizer and Herbicide/Pesticide Management 11
6.2.2 Integrated Pest Management 11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS continued
Page
7.0
8.0
9.0
6.3
6.2.3 Monitor Septic Systems
AMELIORATION OF ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION
PROPOSED MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
GOAL: REDUCE CONTAMINATION OF TRIBAL WATERS BY
SEDIMENT
7.1.1 Task: . Stabilization of Landfill Site
7.1.2 Task: Survev of Sediment Sources
7.1.3 Task: Stabilize Locrcrina Roads
7.1.4 Task: BMPs for • Construction Activities
7.1.5 Task: Technical Assistance
GOAL: REDUCE CONTAMINATION OF TRIBAL WATERS BY
NUTRIENTS
7.2.1 Task: Expansion of Wastewater Treatment
Services
7.2.2 Task: Feedlot Waste Management
GOAL: PROVIDE PROTECTION OF TRIBAL GROUNDWATER
RESOURCES
7.3.1 Task: Establish and Monitor Water Supply
System
7.3.2 Task: Landfill Closure
GOAL: PROVIDE FOR EDUCATION OF TRIBAL MEMBERS
7.4.1 Task: Development of Educational Program
11
11
12
12
12
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
7.5
GOAL: PROVIDE FOR PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION OF
WETLANDS AND RIPARIAN AREAS
14
7.5.1 Task; Protection and Preservation of Wetlands 14
IMPLEMENTATION .15
SOURCES OF FEDERAL AND OTHER ASSISTANCE AND FUNDING 16
9.1 USDA SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE 16
9.2 SOUTHWESTERN NORTH CAROLINA RESOURCE CONSERVATION •
AND DEVELOPMENT 16
9.3 BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 16
9.4 INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE , 16
9.5 FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION " ,16
9,6 NORTH CAROLINA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE 17
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS continued
Page
9.7 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY 17
9.8 SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 17
9.9 AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND CONSERVATION SERVICE 17
10.0 CONSISTENCY OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS
APPENDIX I: Certificate of Legal Authority
18
19
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table • .
6.1 Suggested publications of best management practices
applicable for controlling nonpoint source pollution
on Tribal lands .
Page
-------
1.0 DESIGNATION OF MANAGEMENT AGENCY
The Tribe has recently established a Tribal Environmental"" Of f ice,
which is supported by funding from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency under the multi-media program. This office
functions parallel with the Tribal Planning Office. The Tribal
Environmental Office is responsible for development of an Overall
Tribal Environmental Plan consistent with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Indian Policy. The office coordinates with
other Tribal Programs in the promotion of economic, community and
social development in a cost effective and environmentally sound
manner. The office also conducts environmental assessments and
coordinates with applicable federal agencies and departments
relative to development projects
-------
2.0 CERTIFICATION OF LEGAL AUTHORITY
The Certification of Legal Authority is affirmed by letter
(Appendix I).
-------
3.0 INTRODUCTION
The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, in cooperation with the
Environmental Protection Agency, has initiated the development of
a Tribal nonpoint source program to provide for the protection and
restoration of Tribal waters. Consistent with the
fishable/swimmable goals of the Federal Clean Water Act, the
protection, .maintenance, and improvement of water resources will
provide for the beneficial uses of Tribal waters.
The Tribal Council has taken preliminary steps in establishing
control over various sources of pollution and started the process
of developing a comprehensive environmental program. Through the
integration of a nonpoint source program into the overall
environmental program, the protection of Tribal resources can be
accomplished.
To date, the Tribe has eliminated the use of septic systems on a
significant portion of the reservation. The Tribe has also
operated a sanitary landfill, which is scheduled to close on October
9, 1993. A recycling program for the Reservation has recently been
developed and is being implemented.
Because nonpoint source pollution is a predominant factor around
Tribal holdings, implementation of an effective program requires a
concentrated effort, cooperation, and coordination among all the
agencies and parties involved. This document and the Cherokee
Nonpoint Source Assessment Report have been developed to provide
the framework and goals of the proposed Management Program. The
availability of funds for implementation will enable the Tribe to
achieve the goals outlined.
-------
4.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Since effective implementation of any nonpoint source program
requires the cooperation of the public, business, industry and
governmental agencies, a mechanism for public participation, review
and comment is essential. In conjunction with the submission of
this document to EPA, and in accordance with 40-CFR-25, a notice of
the document's- availability will be published in the local
newspaper. As the program develops, additional opportunity for
public involvement will be provided. All comments received from
interested parties will be summarized and reported to EPA.
-------
5.0 SIGNIFICANT NONPOINT SOURCES
Siltation is the primary source of impairment to Tribal waters.
Due to the characteristic soils and steep topography in the region,
any disturbance of the ground cover has the potential of creating
significant erosion problems.
Historical logging operations contribute to the siltation of Tribal
waters. Logging decks and roads, which were not properly
stabilized to prevent erosion, are the primary sources of this
siltation. These roads are scattered throughout Tribal lands.
Development is another source of siltation. House construction
does not incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion
control and there is no program to treat critically eroding areas
after construction is completed. Additionally, the Cherokee
landfill is not stabilized to prevent erosion.
Many families have gardens for personal use. Erosion and runoff of
pesticides and inorganic fertilizers impact Tribal waters. Family
gardens and a small Christmas tree agri-industry are sources for
this NFS pollution.
On-site wastewater systems (septic tanks) are another source of
pollution to Tribal waters. A portion of the homes on the
Reservation still rely on septic tanks to treat domestic sewage.
These septic systems represent a potential source of organic
pollution and it is suspected some systems are over utilized.
Acidic precipitation has been recorded on Tribal lands, but the
effects of this precipitation have not been determined. One
commercial trout facility regularly experiences fish kills during
heavy rainfall events.
-------
6.0 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IDENTIFIED TO CONTROL SPECIFIC
NONPOINT SOURCES
There are numerous sources for best management practices. A list
of publications on BMPs suitable for addressing the NFS pollution
found on Tribal lands are cited in Table 6.1.
6.1 EROSION CONTROL
The following BMPs are frequently prescribed for erosion problems
occurring on silviculture and construction sites:
6.1.1 Debris Basin (Sediment Basin)
Construction of a dam across drainage courses can be used to help
filter out sediment and related nutrients. The velocity of runoff
water is reduced, thereby temporarily detaining runoff and
permitting much of the sediment and nutrients to settle onto the
basin bottom. This practice reduces sediment and nutrient
deposition into streams but does not control erosion at the source.
6.1.2 Diversion ••-•'."'
A diversion is a channel with a supporting ridge on the lower side
which is constructed across the land slope to allow interception
and disposal of runoff at a selected location. Diversions reduce
the length of slopes and channel surface runoff to suitable outlet
locations. A primary purpose of this BMP is protection of land
below the structure. In certain cases this practice is effective
in diverting animal waste runoff from streams and may be used in
combination with sod to filter out nutrients and fecal bacteria.
Diversions reduce soil erosion on cropland and critically eroding
areas. '
6.1.3 Grade Stabilization Structure
A grade stabilization structure is one which stabilizes erosion
occurring in natural and artificial channels as a result of
significant elevation differences. They are designed to reduce
sharp changes in elevation. These structures reduce erosion and
off-site sediment damage associated with channel and gully erosion.
6.1.4 Grassed Waterway or Outlet
A grassed waterway is a natural or constructed open drain, shaped
and vegetated with close-growing sod and designed to prevent
erosion in drainage structures where runoff water concentrates.
This practice is most often used in row crop fields to provide a
runoff outlet for terraces or diversions. This BMP is effective in
reducing channel or gully erosion and serves the same filtering
function as a Grassed Filter Strip.
-------
Table 6.1
Suggested publications of best management practices
applicable for controlling nonpoint source pollution on
Tribal lands.
1. The Layman's Guide to Private Access Road Construction in the
Southern Appalachian Mountains. 1985. USDA Soil Conservation
Service and USDA Forest Service, Coweeta Hydrologic
Laboratory. Available at local Soil and Water Conservation
District office.
2. Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of
Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters. 1990. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
3. Field Office Technical Guide. USDA Soil Conservation Service.
-------
6.1.5 Land Smoothing and Leveling
Designed to remove surface irregularities, this BMP spreads the
flow of water from a small to a larger drainage area, thereby
allowing for better control of surface runoff. It is most
effective when used in combination with other practices.
6.1.6 Surface Drainage
This is a ditch or channel constructed to transport surface flow to
a suitable outlet. It is not effective in erosion control but may
be used in selected areas of low lying, relatively flat fields
adjacent to streams to transport surface flow through a filter
strip prior to entering the stream. Surface ditches are seldom
vegetated. This BMP is limited in applicability.
6.1.7 Critical Area Planting
Permanent vegetation is established on critically eroding areas.
This BMP requires greater amounts of fertilizer and lime, higher
seeding rates, and more seedbed preparation than normal vegetation
operations and is often used in combination with structural
practices such as grade stabilization structures. Although this
practice is excellent for erosion control, fertility and soil
moisture are normally low in critically eroding areas such as
drainageways, access roads, and streambanks.
6.1.8 Grassed Filter Strip
A strip of vegetation established on field borders or edges. This
is a relatively inexpensive method of filtering sediment,
nutrients, pesticides, and fecal bacteria from runoff and is often
used in combination with other practices such as terraces and
grassed waterways. Research indicates that filter strips can
remove the majority of the nutrients in surface runoff.
6.1.9 Mulching
Mulching is the application of a biodegradable material, such as
hay, straw, animal manure, poultry litter, or wood shavings, to
erosive areas that have been newly planted with grasses or legumes.
Mulching helps insure an adequate stand of vegetation by retaining
soil moisture retarding weed growth, controlling soil temperature,
and reducing erosion. It,is especially applicable on critically
eroding areas.
6.1.10 Tree Planting
This technique involves planting adapted species of trees. Because
this BMP takes several years to provide the optimum cover for
erosion control, adapted species of grasses or legumes should also
be planted for short-term erosion control. This practice is
8
-------
especially applicable to critically eroding areas where low
maintenance is desired.
6.1.11 Rock Check or Filter Dam .,
Clean rock such as limestone is constructed into a porous retention
dam to reduce runoff velocity and provide for sedimentation of the
larger fraction of the suspended sediment. These structures are
generally located in the watershed above sediment ponds.
6.1.12 Hay Bale Barrier
Hay bales are butted together in a row, buried two or three inches
into the ground and staked to prevent soil movement.
6.1.13 Silt Fence
Fabric with specific pore size is attached to metal fencing such as
hog wire stretched immediately below or in parallel series down the
disturbed area and embedded three to six inches in the ground to
prevent undercutting. This structure reduces runoff velocity and
filters larger sediment particles. Frequent maintenance is
critical for this BMP to be effective.
6.1.14 Temporary Diversion Dike. Berm. and/or Ditch
Ridges of compacted, soil or a • constructed channel are used to
divert off-site drainage around the disturbed area. These devices
must be carefully constructed to be effective and to avoid becoming
a source of pollution.
6.1.15 Permanent Diversion and Interceptor Ditch
Permanent structures are constructed which divert overland flow
around the disturbed,area.
6.1.16 Broad-based Dip
A dip is a gentle roll in the centerline profile of a road that is
designed to be a relatively permanent and self-maintaining water
diversion structure and can be traversed by any vehicle. Broad-
based dips should be used on roads having a gradient of 10 percent
or less.
6.1.17 Temporary Vegetation
Temporary grass or other suitable vegetation is grown until
permanent vegetation can be established on the disturbed area.
6.1.18 Permanent Vegetation
Permanent vegetation reduces the impact of rainfall onto the soil,
9
-------
prevents or reduces the dislodgement and 'subsequent.transport of
sediment by sheet flow and channelized flow to-a certain extent.
6.1.19 Soil Amendments .
The addition of fertilizer, lime, or other materials is added to
promote the growth of vegetation.
6.1.20 Rearading . ,• . . .
This reduces the slope length and gradient, provides soil
compaction, and is generally used in conjunction with other BMP's
described previously. !
6.1.21 Wetland/Riparian Area Preservation
Preservation of wetland and riparian . areas, following the
guidelines established by the Corps of Engineers, provides
immediate assistance in the prevention and-control of erosion.
6.1.22 Created Wetland ...-.•'.
This is a constructed . device, similar in .appearance to natural
wetland, which receives and detains storm water runoff in low area
vegetated with hydrophytic plants.; The wetland'.vegetation and
associated microorganisms provide for the removal of solids,
nutrients, and some toxic constituents which may be associated with
urban storm water drainage.1 Water and .space availability are
generally limiting factors in the utilization -of ,: , ,
this practice. :-.•-. ••:- .; :
6.1.23 Vegetated Buffer Strip/Greenbelt/Riparian Areas
A greenbelt is a natural or constructed area with an almost flat
slope vegetated with close growing grass or trees. It is designed
to reduce runoff velocity in order to trap and filter sediment,
nutrients, and other pollutants. This practice must be, maintained
carefully to prevent the development of channel flow across the
filter strip. . • : '. • < •
6.1.24 Lined Waterway or Outlet . i -
A lined waterway is a runoff channel properly sized, shaped, and
lined with an erosion resistant material, most commonly a concrete
flume. This BMP is expensive to install but is sometimes necessary
to stabilize critically eroding areas and is generally used in
combination with vegetative practices such as critical area
planting. , •
Fertilizer and pesticide runoff from residential and commercial
agricultural operations is often addressed by prescribing the
following BMP in combination with selected BMPs used to .treat
10
-------
erosion.
6.2 WASTE WATER CONTROL
"t
6.2.1 Fertilizer and Herbicide/Pesticide Management
This practice involves the proper use and disposal of fertilizer,
herbicides, and pesticides. These materials should be used in
accordance with the manufactures instructions or recommendations.
Empty containers should be triple rinsed with the rinsate applied
to the land and containers properly disposed. Applications of
these materials should not occur-immediately prior to precipitation
events and non-use of the these materials is included as a BMP.
6.2.2 Integrated Pest Management
Integrated Pest Management uses an combined approach to controlling
pests through irrigation, herbicide application, fertilization, and
pesticide application. The area to be managed is analyzed for
leaching of nutrients and pesticides as well as runoff of surface
water. The goal is to protect the groundwater from contaminants
leaching into it. After analysis, the amount of application of
fertilizer and pesticides is determined to give the minimum amount
of leachate.
6.2.3 Septic System Management
Permitting and inspection of septic systems at new housing insures
a properly installed and functioning system. Monitoring of tribal
streams for coliform bacteria serves to assess and locate any
septic system failures.
6.3 AMELIORATION OF ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION
Aquatic areas that are sensitive to acidic precipitation, such as
hatcheries and small ponds, can be protected by the addition of
lime when the pH falls below 5.5. A pH monitoring system with an
automatic lime dispenser will protect most small water bodies.
11
-------
7.0 PROPOSED MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
In order to implement an effective, comprehensive nonpoint source
management program, all sources of pollution must be addressed in
a manner which provides •alternatives and flexibility. This
document is designed to present a proposed strategy with
flexibility in management and implementation. The goals and tasks
outlined can be utilized, altered, and prioritized to protect and
restore water quality. Effective implementation of the proposed
management plan will provide protection to all Tribal waters.
7.1 GOAL: REDUCE CONTAMINATION OF TRIBAL WATERS BY SEDIMENT
7.1.1 Task: Stabilization of Landfill Site
The Tribe will stabilize the existing Cherokee landfill site. Site
specific BMPs will be developed after consultation with USDA Soil
Conservation Service. BMPs suitable for this task are listed in
section 6.0.
7.1.2 Task; Survey of Sediment Sources
The Tribe will initiate a comprehensive survey which will include
mapping the sources of sediment which are impacting Tribal waters.
This survey will focus primarily on identifying erosion problems
from historical silviculture operations and housing construction.
This task will include a prioritized listing for targeting problem
areas within the Tribal Reserve lands. This listing will be
developed according to guidelines established in EPA Office of
Water Regulations and Standards' technical publication called
Setting Priorities: The Kev to Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
7-1.3 Task; Stabilize Logging Roads
The Tribe will stabilize abandoned logging roads on reservation
property. Site specific BMPs will be prescribed after consultation
with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Forestry Section and USDA
Soil Conservation Service. BMPs appropriate for this task are
listed in section 6.0.
7.1.4 Task: BMPs for Construction Activities
At an appropriate time, the Tribe will prescribe BMPs suitable and
appropriate for use in all construction activities on the
reservation. The BMPs adopted will address all forms of
construction including but not limited to dwellings, community
structures, roads, driveways, bridges, and dams. Site specific
BMPs will be prescribed on a case by case basis after consultation
with appropriate Tribal offices and the USDA Soil Conservation
Service. BMPs appropriate for this task are listed in section 6.0.
12
-------
7.1.5 Task: Technical Assistance
Funding will be sought to establish a position under the
supervision of the Director of the Tribal Environmental Office that
will provide technical assistance to tribal members in the design
and implementation of BMPs for NFS pollution control. In addition,
this staff member will respond to nonpoint source problems.
7.2 GOAL: REDUCE CONTAMINATION OF TRIBAL WATERS BY NUTRIENTS
7.2.1 Task: Expansion of Wastewater Treatment Services.
The Tribe will continue to extend the wastewater treatment service
area until all homes are included. This task will be accomplished
through a cooperative effort with the Environmental Protection
Agency, Indian Health Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Septic systems that cannot be hooked into the tribal sewer system
will be evaluated and upgraded if necessary.
7.2.2 Task: Feedlot Waste Management
The Tribe will require that the landowner assess the impact to the
aquatic environment of a hog feedlot on Adams Creek. If the impact
is of sufficient magnitude to warrant a waste treatment program,
the Tribe will consult with the landowner, SCS, ASCS and EPA on
appropriate BMPs to correct this situation.
7.3 GOAL: PROVIDE PROTECTION OF TRIBAL GROUNDWATER RESOURCES
7.3.1 Task: Establish and Monitor Water Supply System
The Tribe will continue to develop a reservation wide water supply
system. Individual wells will be monitored for coliform and
nitrate/nitrite contamination. The Tribe will seek assistance from
Indian Health Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and EPA in meeting
this goal.
7.3.2 Task; Landfill Closure
The landfill is scheduled for closure on October 9, 1993. Funding
is needed to assist in this process. The Tribe will seek
assistance from Indian Health Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
and EPA in meeting this goal.
7.4 GOAL: PROVIDE FOR EDUCATION OF TRIBAL MEMBERS
7.4.1 Task; Development of Educational Program
The Tribe will develop and implement an educational program to be
13
-------
utilized in the communities and school system on the reservation.
Since education has been recognized as a key component of a
successful NFS program, the development ... and distribution of
educational materials which address water quality and litter will
help provide needed changes in attitude and aid implementation of
the program. The Tribe will seek assistance from the Tennessee
Valley Authority and other appropriate offices in meeting this
goal.
7.5 GOAL: PROVIDE FOR PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION OF WETLANDS AND
RIPARIAN AREAS
7.5.1 Task: Protection and Preservation of Wetlands
The Tribe will develop and implement a program to protect and
preserve natural wetlands and riparian areas on the reservation.
The program, will include guidance for restoration of any critical
habitats previously disturbed and will provide specific
requirements for activities which may be expected to generate
adverse impacts. The Tribe will request assistance from
Tennessee Valley Authority, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and EPA in
meeting this goal.
14
-------
8.0 IMPLEMENTATION
Provided approval of this program is granted by EPA and funds are
available pursuant, to Section 319 of the Clean Water Act,
implementation of this program will proceed in a timely fashion.
The following table outlines the proposed schedule of
implementation. The Tribe reserves the right to alter this
schedule based on immediate needs and resources available.
NPS IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE (Fiscal Year)
ACTIVITY 1993 1994 1995
Technical Assistance & Complaint
Investigation for Erosion and
Sediment Control
1996
Stabilize Tribal Landfill
Survey & Mapping of. Chronic Sources
of Siltation
Stabilize Abandoned Logging .Roads
Stabilize Home Sites, Roads, Driveways
Provide for Education of Tribal Members
Extend Wastewater Treatment Area
Protect Wetlands and Riparian Areas
Ground Water Well Testing -,- .
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
15
-------
9.0 SOURCES OF FEDERAL AND OTHER ASSISTANCE AND FUNDING
A comprehensive summary of all federal, state, and local assistance
and funding was addressed as part, of the previously submitted
Assessment Report. The following description of programs offered
by cooperating agencies relates to the control of nonpoint source
pollution on the Reservation.
9.1 USDA SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
The USDA Soil Conservation -arvice (SCS) is the technical agency
responsible for providing on-site assistance to land users in
planning and application of soil and water conservation measures.
SCS works under memoranda of understanding with the soil and water
conservation districts. SCS has cooperated with the tribe and
provided technical assistance in the development of soil and water
conservation plans. SCS is preparing a soils map of the Tribal
lands.
9.2 SOUTHWESTERN NORTH CAROLINA RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND
DEVELOPMENT
The Tribe is also a sponsor of the Southwestern North Carolina
Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) Council and a
contributor to the Southwestern N.C. RC&D Plan. Through this plan
and related funding, conservation related projects are accomplished
within the RC&D Area. The Tribe has utilized RC&D planning and
funding to accomplish conservation projects. The Tribe expects
this cooperative working relationship to continue.
9.3 BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) has responsibilities over all
properties held in trust by the U.S. Government for Indian Tribes.
These responsibilities are set forth in 25 CFR Part 150-250. The
BIA will provide technical assistance and resources when available.
9.4 INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE
Indian Health Service (IHS) has the responsibility of providing
health services to Federally Recognized- Indian Tribes. IHS
provides resources to insure sound public and environmental health
services.
9.5 FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION
Farmers Home Administration (USDA-FmHA) provides resources for soil
16
-------
and water development, conservation, community water storage
facilities, water and wastewater disposal systems, watershed
protection, and housing rehabilitation including septic systems.
9.6 NORTH CAROLINA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE
North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service (NCCES) is responsible
for implementing informational and educational functions relating
to agricultural and natural resources, home economics and
nutrition, 4-H and youth, and community development. This agency
provides water quality education which stresses an awareness and
understanding of nonpoint source pollution problems.
9.7 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is responsible for conducting soil
and water conservation programs. TVA is considered a source agency
for the design and development of NFS pollution control projects.
9.8 SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS
Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD) carry out erosion
prevention and control measures within the district. The SWCD
conduct surveys, investigations, and research relating to the
character of soil erosion. They recommend preventive and control
measures, disseminate information concerning such preventive and
control measures, and administer the North Carolina Agriculture
Cost-Share Program. This program is intended to reduce the input
of agricultural nonpoint source pollution into water resources.
9.9 AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND CONSERVATION SERVICE
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS)
administers the Agricultural Conservation Program. This program
offers cost sharing for soil, water, and forestry practices of
long-term benefit.
17
-------
10.0 CONSISTENCY OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS
The Tribal Environmental Office will be responsible for the review
of activities and programs conducted by all federal agencies on
tribal lands to ensure compliance with tribal NPS Program. This
will be one of the duties of technical assistant in the Tribal
Environmental Office. The following is a list of Federal Agencies
expected to be conducting activities that would fall within the
guidelines of the NPS Program.
USDA SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE
HUD (QUALLA HOUSING AUTHORITY)
18
-------
APPENDIX I
Certificate of Legal Authority
19
-------
THE EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
Qualla Boundary - P.O. Box 455, Cherokee, N.C. 28719
Telephone: (704) 497-3771 497-4771
FAX No. (704) 497-2952
JONATHAN L. TAYLOR. Principal Chief
GERARD PARKER. Vice-Chief
ARNOLD WACHACHA. Executive Advisor
June 29, 1993
Ms. Maryann Gerber
Non-Point Source Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
Dear Ms. Gerber:
In regard to certification of legal authority and "Treatment as a State"
for the Section 319 program, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians is a
Federally Recognized Indian Tribe as published in the Federal Register
and enjoy a Government-to-Government relationship with the United States
Government. As a result of this relationship the Tribe is authorized to
receive grant funds and administer programs on the Cherokee Indian
Reservation. , •...,.
In reference to the Section 319 Non-Point Source Assessment Report and
Management Program, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians intends to
submit an application for financial assistance under Section 319 (h) grant
funds upon program approval by EPA.
The primary contact for program implementation and administration will
be the Tribal Environmental Office located in the Tribal Utilities
Building, in Cherokee, North Carolina.
Thank you for your interest in the Cherokee Indian Reservation. Should
you have questions or require additional information, please contact Mr.
Eddie Almond of my staff at (704) 497-3814.
Sincerely,
Jonathan L. Taylor
Principal Chief
DAN MCCOY
Chairman. Birdtown Township
BERTHA SAUNOOKE
Yellowhill Township
JENNIFER HARLAN
Paintlown Township
ABRAHAM WACHACHA
Snowbird Township
TRIBAL COUNCIL MEMBERS
GLENN IOE BRADLEY
Vice Chairman. Wolfetown Township
BILL LAMBERT
Birdlown Township
LARRY BLYTHE
Painttown Township
MYRTLE D'lOHNSON
Big Cove Township
CLENDA SANDERS
Cherokee Co. Township
RICHARD WELCH
Yellowhill Township
CARROLL PARKER
Wolfetown Township
SAMUEL V PANTHER
Big Cove Township
-------
-------
V i. • • •
" ' • /v'-..
Eastern Band of Cherokee
Indians
Section 319
Nonpoint Source Program
Application
-------
-------
THE EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
Qualla Boundary - P.O. Box 455, Cherokee, N.C. 28719
Telephone: (704) 497-2771 497-4771
FAX No. (704) 497-2952
JONATHAN L. TAYLOR. Principal Chief
GERARD PARKER. Vice-Chief
ARNOLD WACHACHA. Executive Advisor
July 27, 1993
Ms. Maryann Gerber
Non-Point Source Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
Dear Ms. Gerber:
Please find enclosed an original and two copies of the Eastern Band
of Cherokee Indians request for financial assistance under Section
319 of the Clean Water Act.
As you know, the Tribe recently submitted to your office a Non-
POint Source Pollution Assessment and Management Program for
consideration. We feel that implementation of this effort is
essential to the protection and enhancement of the waters on the
Cherokee Indian Reservation.
Specifically, this requested assistance will address a major
erosion and siltation problem associated with the Tribes landfill
operation. Through the utilization of technical assistance from
the Soil Conservation Service the Tribe plans to close, stabilize
and provide a protective vegetative cover on the 7-8 acre site.
Thank you for your consideration of this most worthwhile project.
Should you have questions or require additional information, please
contact Mr. Eddie Almond of my staff at (704) 497-3814.
Sincerely,
Jonathan L. Taylor
Principal Chief
DAN MCCOY
Chairman Birdtown Township
BERTHA SAUNOOKE
IENMFER HARLAN
Puinlloivn T»Mn>.hip
ABRAHAM IXACHACHA
TRIBAL COUNCIL MEMBERS
GLENN IOE BRADLEY
Vice Chjirman. Wolfctiiun fownvhip
BILL LAMBERT
Birdloixn Toivnsnip
IARRY BIYTIIK
Pamltonn fonnship
.\1\RTU n JOHNSON
Bijl Cove Kn\n\hip
GLF.NDA SANDlRb
Cherokee Co Tonnship
RICHARD WtlCH
Yellow-hill loixnship
CARROtl !>M?kFR
SAMUll A I'AMWR
ove !oi\T>n:p
-------
APPLICATION FOR
FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
(2
Cminic&on
fi
July 29, 1993
J OATt MCtlVfO (V ST4K
N/A
4. OATS MCCVf 0 •» 'CMKU, AOIMCt
Sec. 319 NPS
SUM Aeotatt«n tocnlilor
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
O>0*niM(ienai Unit
AM'MI f8"« CJ(V.
P.O. Box 455
Cherokee, NC 28719
Swain County
N«m« tna inter*** m^nMr e< tfw o*ran M M oonuetM on m«iur» m«Q>v«r
A
I. County
C
0. To
C. inufUM
f irwmuiiBC*
a Sam Oifmei
[KJ
M lr»nmnd«rn Seftort Bn».
L SUM CoMraflKlinfmuiian of Mqnar (.Mrmi^
J- ftrtvmUMMraNV
K MlanTHbt
L.
M
H. Otfw (SeW)
t.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
it. cATAtoao«nMiuu.ooMisne
AMUTAMCt MUMtUk
Section 319 (h) - Non-Point Source
Pollution Control Program
M. MSCUmvt mU 0* AWUCAMTt MMJtCT:
Landfill closure, stabilization and
vegetation activities.
It. AMA*«mCtlS it MOJfCT ftiMC. COunMS. «tenMd Ov
-------
•
9
S
a
i
1
|
fa
i
i <
. ^
«
i
s
i
1
i
4
•
i
i
Is
•5
J»
9
*
1S
,
|§
JC
• ^
||l
II r
3|
Grant PtogrMi
function
or Activity
«
0
8
-
o
0
o
o
m
^
o
0
o
in
<&
^
„
**>
X
s«
o ?
4.
M t
W «
i
\
/
i
»
»
i
i
o
o
o
•k
m
o
o
o
0
m
«*
o
0
o
m
vO
^
^
|
I
[
i
•
i
s
i
i
:
|2
§
•
i
s
I _
-•
I
i
c
S
tfl
I
i
0
Ą»
^
1
O
2
4
4
4
Ł
4
I
1
1
1
1
i
m
A
\
1
i
»
i
4
i
?
•
1
4
i
o
!
o
1
o
1
1
o
0
o
A
m
o
o
o
in
-H
^
!
4
i
o
•
K
9
1
O
1
O
!
o
o
0
•k
m
••4
0
o
o
-
s
c
1
•5
' i
i
«
L toUlOirci
4
o
i
3
;
§
in
I
K
I
o
o
o
4
-------
• i i
i
^
i
«M
*
•H
!
J
1
C
*
T
«
j
\
i
ji
is i
•
w
g
i
-
I
o
m
i •
i
i
i
•
!
i •
•
i o
t 0
* 0
I 0
in
«•
n
c^
(T
CM
CN
oŁ
! 5
i s
a ^
«•
Ł *•
C
n
C
CO
cn
vO
I
o
p
a
vr
o
o
o
o
M
«
O
o
o
o
m
•»
*?
«•»
1
•
TJ
|
*
S
0
-
i
i
i
1
t
o
§
i
s
1
]
3
1
2
j
j
J
**
«.
«•
o
0
m
CM
.en
•A
O
o
m
4*
CM
cn
<*
Io
o
o
m
so
«•
j
1
o
,
o
o
o
0
•k
m
CM
o
o
o
M
m
CM
o
o
o
o
m
_
a
*
1
«
»
0
o
m
in
o
o
m
m
«*
o
o
o
m
•-4
<*
^^
• ^
^
1
••
M)
8
e
*
i
^
g
2
5
S
o
2
Ul
i
EOFORIALAI
FUNDS NEEOI
i
o
Ik
5
ESTIMATES
h»
ui
Q
3
§
5
«/»
.
I
&
^
s
i
j
1
x
2
I
§
1
1
!
|
1
O
^^
•
^*
-
-
«*
•
i
-
-
«•
^%
2
**
j
2
2
*Q
E
«A
2
2
i
2
ii
, €
2 1
O
I
: ;
0
1
1
ri
m^^
O
0
O
m
•M-
ii
|
g
e
a
* % • I
«« I
n »<$
tH CM
00 CM
O •
1- CM
cu cn
01 I
rged to th
Personnel
eg
•ss
at -a
to 01
§ «
a ^
X
rsonnel E
t Rate is
0) to
P4 O
CJ
o
u
O 01
•U M
si
T3 l-l
U -0
CO 01
O >
cj o
>j
u Cu
U D.
01 A
M
•H M
•O -
C 01
M .a
•H
1!
»
-u
If
af
1
I
«
I
1
^
2
«
S
5
1
O l-l !
Z H '
i
;
4
-------
OM«
ASSURANCES - NON-CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMS
Note: Certain of these assurances may not be applicable to your project or program. If you hav« question,
please contact the awarding agency Further, certain Federal awarding agencies may require Jppi* e»«S
to certxfy to additional assurances. If such is the case, you will be notified. Applicants
As the duly authorized representative of the applicant I certify that the applicant:
1. Has the legal authority to apply fer Federal
assistance, and the institutional, managerial and
financial capability (including funds sufficient to
pay the non-Federal share of project costs) to
ensure proper planning, management and com-
pletion of the project described in this application.
2. Will give the awarding agency, the Comptroller
General of UWUnited States! and if appropriate,
the State, through any authorized representative,
access to and the right to examine all records,
books, papers, or documents related to the award;
and will establish a proper accounting system in
accordance with generally accepted accounting
standards or agency directives.
3. Will establish safeguards to prohibit (employees
from using their positions for a purpose that
constitutes or presents the appearance of personal
or organizational conflict of interest, or personal
gain.
4. Will initiate and complete the work within the
applicable time frame after receipt of approval of
the awarding agency.
5. Will comply with the Intergovernmental
Personnel Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. II 4728-4763)
relating to prescribed standards for merit systems
for programs funded under one of the nineteen
statutes or regulations specified in Appandix A of
OPM's Standards for a Merit System of Personnel
Administration (5 C.F.R. 900, Subpart F).
6. Will comply with all Federal statute* relating to
nondiscrimination. The** include but art not
limited to: (a) Title VI of the Civil Right* Act of
1964 (P.L. 88-362) which prohibita discrimination
on the basis of rac* color or national origin; (b)
Title IX of the Edaoatioa Amendments of 1972, as
amended (20 U.S.C If 1681-1683, and 1685-1686),
which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex;
(c) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. as
amended (29 U.S.C. I 794). which prohibits dis-
crimination on the basis of handicaps; (<1) the Age
Discrimination Act of 1975. as amended (42
US.CH 6101-6107), which prohibits discrira-
ination on'the basis of age;
7.
9.
(e) the Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act «f
1972 (P.L. 92-255), as amended, relating to
nondiscrimination on the basis of drug abuse. (0
the Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
Prevention. Treatment and Rehabilitation Act of
1970 (P.L. 91-616), as amended, relating to
nondiscrimination on the basis of alcohol abuse or
alcoholism; (g)}} 523 and 527 of the Public Health
Service Act of 1912 (42 U.S.C. 290 dd-3 and 290 ee-
3). as amended, relating to confidentiality of
alcohol and drug abuse patient records; (h) Title
VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C f
3601 et seq.), as amended, relating to non-
discrimination in the sale, rental or financing of
housing; (i) any other nondiscrimination
provisions in the specific statute(s) under which
application for Federal assistance is being madei
and (j) the requirements of any other
nondiscrimination statutes) which may apply to
the application.
Will comply, or has already complied, with the
requirements of Titles II and III of the Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-646)
which provide for fair and equitable treatment of
persons displaced or whose property is acquired as
a result of Federal or federally assisted programs.
These requirements apply to all interests in real
property acquired for project purposes regardless
of Federal participation in purchases.
Will comply with the provisions of the Hatch Act
(5 U.S.C. II1501-1508 and 7324-7328) which limit
the political activities of employees whose
principal employment activities are funded in
whole or in part with Federal funds.
Will comply, as applicable, with the provisions of
the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. || 276a to 276a-
7), the Copeland Act (40 U.S.C. I 276c and 18
U.S.C. II874), and the Contract Work Hours and
Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. II 327-333).
regarding labor standards for federally assisted
construction subagreemente.
owe
Authorized for Local Reproduction
-------
10. Will comply, if aif liable, with flood insurance
purchase requirements of Section 102(a) of the
Flood Disaster Prottetion Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-234)
which requires recipients in a special flood hazard
area to participate in the program andto purchase
Hood insurance if the total cost of insurable
construction and acquisition is <10,OQO or more.
11. Will comply with environmental standards which
may be prescribed pursuant to the following: (a)
institution of environmental quality control
measures under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190) and Executive
Order (EO) 11514; (b) notification of violating
facilities pursuant to EO 11738; (c) protection of
wetlands pursuant to EO 11990; (d) evaluation of
flood haiard*in floodptains in accordance with EO
11988; (e) assurance of project consistency with
the approved State management program
developed under the Coastal Zone Management
Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. H 1451 et seq.); (f)
conformity of Federal actions to State (Clear Air)
Implementation Plans under Section 176(c) of the
Clear Air Act of 1955. as amended (42 U.S.C. I
7401 et seq.); (g) protection of underground sources
of drinking water under the Safe Drinking Water
Act of 1974, as amended, (P.L. 93-523); and (h)
protection of endangered species under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, (P.L.
93-205).
12. Will comply with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
of 1968 (16 U.S.C. if 1271 et seq.) related to
protecting components or potential components of
the national wild and scenic rivers system.
13. Will assist the awarding agency m assuring
compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966. as amended (16
U.S.C. 470). EO 11593 (identification and
protection of historic properties), and the
Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of
1974(16U.S.C.469a-l etseq.).
14. Will comply with P.L. 93-348 regarding the
protection of human subjects involved in research.
development, and related activities supported by
this award of assistance.
15. Will comply with the Laboratory Animal Welfare
Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-544. as amended, 7 U SC.
2131 ct seq.) pertaining to the care, handling, and
treatment of warm blooded animals held for
research, teaching, or other activities supported by
this award of assistance.
16. Will comply with the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning
Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. II 4801 et seq ) which
prohibits the use of lead based paint in
construction or rehabilitation of residence
structures.
17. Will cause to be performed the required financial
and compliance audits in accordance with the
Single Audit Act of 1984.
18. Will comply with all applicable requirements of all
other Federal laws, executive orders, regulations
and policies governing this program.
SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED CERTIFYING OWOAL
yr^/UfoU^ X . /SCl^^
APPUCANTORftANGEMlOM
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
TITLE
Principal Chief
DATE SUBMITTED
July 27, 1993
-------
3LTGET CATEGORIES INTDRtoTION (FROM SF424A, SECTIjt; 3 TOTALSi
Enter Total Program Cv.its, i.e., Federal and Non-Federal Fur>ds Combined
(Attach Separate Sheet(s) if necessary)
Dbject Class Categories
i. personnel: (Program staff ing-
include and indicate vacant
positions)
Position Title
ERSCNNEL CATEGOEY TOTALS
. FRINGE BENEFITS: TOTAL
. TRAVEL: TOTAL
Number in
Position
Class
1)
Annual
Salary
Bate
(3)
Work
Years
(4)
Personnel
Costs
(5)
$ -0-
; -u-
{ -0-
-------
3ET CA.73GORIES INFORMATION (FROM SF424A, SECTION* 3
and Non-Federal Funds Combi
« Enter iOta-L rrcgrsun uostsr *•-•• rtwetaj. cuw i*jjj-r=-ca.«a* «• ~ — — -— *ii««
1
(Attach Separate Sheet (s) if Necessary)
cfcriect Class Categories _!
d. Equipment:
(1) List each item costing $5,000 of more to be purchased for this project;
-•.*
-
SUB-TOTAL
(2) List items costing less than $5, OCX). You nay list the iteas ty groups,
as appropriate.
SUB-TOTAL
COMBINED EQUIPMENT TOTAL
t. Supplies: List ty groups, as appropriate.
.
!
1
j SUPPLIES TOTAL
i
i
j
$ -°-
s -o-
s -o-
s -o-
-------
BUDGET CATEGORIES LtfORMATICN (FROM SF424A, SECTION B TOTALS)
Enter Total Program Costs, i.e., Federal and Non-Federal Funds Combined
(Attach Separate Sheet(s) if Necessary)
ject Class Categories
CENTPACTUHAL: List each planned contract separately, type of services to be
procured, proposed procurement method (i.e. small purchase, formal
advertising, competitive negotiations or non-competitive negotiations) and
the estimated cost. Also, please indicate if the projected contract
performance period will go beyond the budget period of assistance for which
this application is submitted.'
Competitive selection of contractor to provide outlined task. In
coordination aith existing staff and equipment of the Tribal Utilities
department.
COMBINED GONTRACTURAL TOTAL
$ 115.000
OCNgTFlJCTICN; (N/A)
3THER: Explain by major categories any items not included in above standard
budget categories. Cautioni Do not include or propose as a direct project
cost, any cost that is indirect in nature (see OMB Circular A-87) or is
included in the indirect cost pool on which the indirect cost rate (item j)
is based.
O1HKK TOTAL
-0-
IUTAL DIRECT CHARGES: (Sum of Items a. through h.)
$ 115.000
2JDIRECT COSTS? (Attach a cow of your latest indirect cost aorcement)
-0-
5 115.000
-------
K~Y PEOPLE LIST
Please show street address as well as Post Office Box Number where applicable
DIRECTOR:
(Individual who is authorized to sign the assistance agreement application a:
award acceptance) .
Name : _ Jonathan L. Taylor _ ___________________________________ ____________
Title ; Principal Chief ""
Address ; figs tern Band x>f Cherokee Indians
P.O. Box 455 _ _ _
Cherokee, North Carolina 28719
Telephone; (704) 497-2771
PROGRAM DIRECTOR;
(technical program director; generally the same individual as the "contact
person" in block I 5 of the application).
Name: Eddie Almond
Title; Director
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
P.O. Box 455
Cherokee. North Carolina 28719
Telephone; (704) 497-3814
FINANCE DIRECTOR;
(This is the, person who is responsible for (1) maintaining the accounting/fi-l
nancial management system supporting grant expenditures; (2) preparing finan]
cial reports; and (3) maintaining the Letter of Credit. It any of these I
responsibilities are located in another office, please so indicate by showing]
below the name(a), title(s) organization name(s), address and telephone.)
Name: Larry F. Callicutt
Title: Finance Director
ddress: Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
P.O. Box 455
Cherokee, North Carolina 28719
Telephone: (704) 497-7554
-------
Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements
Grantees Other Than Individuals
This certification is required by the regulations implementing the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988.AO c?R
Par: 32. Subpan F. The regulations, published in the January 31.1989 Fff*"*11 p**"tgr- reqture certification by
snr.iees. pnor to award, that they will maintain a drug-free workplace. The certification set out below is a material
representation of fid upon which reliance will be placed when the agency determines to award ihc grant. False
cersficauon or violation of the certification shall be grounds for suspension of payments, suspension or lemunauon
of pants, or governmentwide suspension or debarment (see 40 CFR Pan 32, Sections 31615 and 32.620).
The grantee cerufies that it will provide a drug-free workplace by:
(a) Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing.
possession or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the grantee's workplace and specifying the actions
that will be taken against employees for violation of such prohibition;
(b) Establishing a drug-free awareness program to inform employees about t-
(1) The dangers of drug abuse in (he workplace;
(2) The grantee's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace;
(3) Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs: and
(4) The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations occurring in the workpiicc •.
(c) Making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged in the performance of the grant be given a ccpy
of the statement required by paragraph (a);
(d) Notifying the employee in the statement required by paragraph (a) that, as a condition of employment under
the grant, the employee will •
(1) Abide by the terms of the statement: and
(2) Notify the employer of any criminal drug statute conviction for a violation occurring in the workpass r.z
later than five days after such conviction;
*
(e) Notifying the agency within ten days after receiving notice under subparagnph (d)(2) from an employe* cr
otherwise receiving actual notice of such conviction:
(0 Taking one of the following actions, within 30 days of receiving notice under subparagnph (d)(2), with
respect to any employee who is so convicted ~
(1) Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including termination: or
(2) Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation prcgrxr.
approved for sues purposes by a Federal. State, or local health, law enforcement, or other appropriate a;:—;.
(g) Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug-free workplace through implementation of
paragiasiu (j), $), (C). (d), (e), and (0-
Inserted la d» space below is the n'te(s) for the performance of work done in connection with the specific
gnnt(sVcoop«miv« agreements) for which this applicauon(s) is submitted.
Cherokee Indian Reservation
Plact at PtrfomMCi (mrmt titnm, tuj, tm»tj, iuu. up codti
P.O. Box 455
Cherokee, North Carolina 28719
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
Off aniuuon .Nam*
Jonathan L. Taylor-Principal Chief
Tint at AwtAaruc* luprcttnuut*
July 27, 1993
0»M
-------
Certification Regarding Lobbying
Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans, and Cooperative
Agreements
The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and
belief, that:
(1) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid,
by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing
or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency,
a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an
employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding
of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the
making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative
agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or
modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative
agreement.
(2) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been
paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting
to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of
Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a
Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant,
loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and
submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in
accordance with its instructions.
(3) The undersigned shall require that the language of this
certification be included in the award documents for all subawards
at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts
under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that ail
subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.
This certification is a material representation of fact upon which
reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered unto.
Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or
entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31.
U. S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification
shall be subject to a civil penalty of"not less than $10,000 and ncn
more than $100,000 for each such failure.
Jonathan L. Taylor-Principal Chief
Typed Name fc Title of Authorized Representative
Signature of Authorized Representative
July 27, 1993
Date
-------
&EPA
EPA Project Control Numcer
United States Environmental Protection Agtney
Wainington, DC 20460
Certification Regarding
Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters
The prospective participant certifies to the best of its knowledge and belief that it and its principals:
(a) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarmertt, dedared ineligible, or voluntarily
excluded from covered transactions by any Federal department or agency;
(b) Have not within a three year period preceding this proposal been convicted of or had a civil judgement
rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining.
attempting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal, State, or local) transaction or contract under a
public transaction; violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes or commission of embezzlement.
theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving
stolen property;
(c) Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a government entity (Federal.
State, or local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (i)(b) of this
certification; and
*
(d) Have not within a three-year period preceding this application/proposal had one or more puci:c
transactions (Federal, State, or local) terminated for cause or default
I understand that a false statement on this certification may be grounds for rejection of this proposal cr
termination of the award. In addition, under 18 USC Sec. 1001, a false statement may result in a fine of LC
to Si0.000 or imprisonment for up to 5 years, or both.
:to/Nam«. & Titi* o( Autnonzta
Jonathan L. Taylor-Principal Chiaf
ot AutnenzM A^rwwnanv*
Oat*
July 27, 1993
: I am unable to certify to the above statements. My explanation is attached.
EPA form 370
-------
APPLICATION
The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians is requesting grant assistance
under Section 319 (h) of the Clean Water Act. These requested funds
in the amount of $65,000.00 are to be utilized in coordination with
$50,000.00 matching share to assist the Tribe with the
implementation of our nonpoint source management program.
Specifically, this requested funding will directed to the closure,
stabilization and vegetation of the Tribes existing landfill
facility.
(a) NAME AND ADDRESS OF INDIAN TRIBAL GOVERNING BODY APPLYING FOR
GRANT FUNDS.
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
P.O. Box 455
Cherokee, North Carolina 28719
(b) DESCRIPTIVE NAME OF PROJECT
Landfill closure, stabilization and vegetation activities
(c) FEDERAL FUNDING NEEDED
$65,000.00
(d) POPULATION DIRECTLY BENEFITING FROM THE PROJECT
Cherokee Indian Reservation, Cherokee, NC
Total number of enrolled members as of June 24, 1993 is
10,401. All Tribal members are directly impacted by
Reservation solid waste management activities.
(e) LENGTH OF PROJECT
It is anticipated that the project will require a maximum of
twelve (12) months to complete.
(f) BEGINNING DATE
We anticipate that the Tribal landfill will cease receiving
solid waste prior to the October 9, 1993 EPA deadline. At
that point actual construction activities on closure will
begin. However, planning activities are ongoing in regard to
solid waste management including engineering and surveying at
the landfill facility.
(g) PROJECT BUDGET CATEGORIES
(See attached budget and associated justification)
-------
(h) PROGRAM NARRATIVE STATEMENT
(See attached program narrative and work plan)
(i) NAME AND ADDRESS OF AGENCY OFFICE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
Ms. Maryann Gerber
Non-Point Source Coordinator
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
(j) DATE APPLICATION SUBMITTED . " .
July 27, 1993
(k) MATCHING SHARES
This requested assistance, in the amount of $65,000.00 is
matched with $50,000.00 for a total project of $115 000. The
Source of the matching share is funds provided by the Bureau
of Indian Affairs. These funds are eligible to match federal
funds as setforth in 25 CFR 272.33(a).
(1) REPORTING REQUIREMENTS /
The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians agree to submit progress
and financial reports regarding this requested assistance in
accordance with the requirments of the EPA program or
department. The Tribal Environmental Office will be the point
of contact at Cherokee regarding this project.
-------
LANDFILL CLOSURE, STABILIZATION & VEGETATION
PROJECT COST ESTIMATE*
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
1. Hauling and placement of approximately 25,000 cubic yards
of suitable soil material for compaction and vegetation.
$25,000 X $3.00/cubic yard = $75,000.00
2. Compaction (sheep foot) and soils testing estimated at
$10,000.00 l.s.
3. Water control structures and construction of sediment
basins. Cost estimated at $15,000.00.
4. Seeding and landscaping. Cost estimate $10,000.00.
5. Road improvements estimated at $5,000.00
TOTAL COST = $115,000.00
*Preliminary estimates provided by Soil Conservation Service
-------
LANDFILL CLOSURE, STABILIZATION & VEGETATION
PROJECT BUDGET
PERSONNEL
FRINGE BENEFITS
TRAVEL
EQUIPMENT
SUPPLIES
CONTRACTUAL
CONSTRUCTION
_ n_
Ł115,000.30
5115,000.00
** Requested E?A participation is Sc5,"C,.CC-
-------
HA
412*
1f92
UNITED ITATII WAHT1WIT Of THE JKTMtOt
KftEAU OF INDIAN AFFAIU
MMLLOTNCNT DCCUNWT
eee. to NO.
Data i
f M tee. ID He.
pit* Cftccdadi
» Capital
TO* 1100 • (imam) Jt _ _
WK100 - optrattm of Indian »r»traa» • PT W
lUMTftATION 9
204 - 101 • TIXK
PUWt STOOD tpteicl ff*tn» (tanul)
«T> tO NO.
t«t«J
ttMRAM
CU«I
sra
•UMUOTMa
mui
brvlrtrwnUl Owllty tarvlm
TOTAL
T
•120,000
$120,000
BICICAM
*t90.000
4«»,«X)
9170,000
UTD.OOO
REMUKIi Than fwnda ara iwdt avalltbla purauant to ^.U. 10Z-M1, tha Oapartmnt of tha intarfor and ftatatad
A|tne1it AppruprUtlana Aet, 1W3, afamd Octcbar J, 1992.
tgndt art to bt wad In ataUtlno tha Chardtat TMbt In tloaurt of • dMp
TM«a
aTa iubHet to tht eandttteM and rtatrtettoni
AMOUNT TO U ALLOCATE M UMLLOCATCO
37110 Ktwetaai Wtau
d
Afprtvadiyr
ACTING
in
AUocata
•50,000
UnaUacata
Oatai
Oatai
this
KKtplant llonaturt
bttn «nttf«d !nte tl»a Mdarat rinanea iy«tw«
by Cantr»l Off let.
<^
-------
\
m
• LANDFILL CLOSURE, STABILIZATION & VEGETATION
BUDGET JUSTIFICATION
As indicated in the project budget, no funds are requested in -'-
-------
The Tribes solid waste program includes daily collection in the
Reservation Business District and weekly "curb side" collection
within the residential areas. The Tribe also provides a collection
point with dumpsters at the landfill for after hours convenience of
the public. Also, the Tribe's landfill facility serves as a
disposal site for solid waste generated by the various federal
agencies located in the community including the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, the Indian Health Service, the National Park Service, and
the Oconaluftee Job Corp facilities.
Additionally, the Tribe operates the Tribal Recycling Program and
Recycling Center aimed at the promotion of recycling and source
reduction within our community. The recycling program is involved
in public education, collection and marketing of recyclable
materials. Recycling at Cherokee is strictly voluntary, but is
gaining popularity within the community.
In 1984, Congress passed the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
(HSWA) to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The
US EPA subsequently developed the Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
Criteria Rule--Subtitle "D" 40 CFR PART 258. These regulations
became effective on October 9, 1991, and impact all existing and
proposed new landfill facilities. The major provisions of Subtitle
"D" include: Location Restrictions; Operating Criteria; Design
Criteria; Groundwater Monitoring and Corrective action; Closure and
Post Closure Care; and Financial Assurance.
Applicability of the new regulations applies to new, existing and
lateral expansions of solid waste landfills that receive household
waste on or after October 9, 1993. Those landfills which closed or
ceased to receive solid waste before October 9, 1991, are exempt.
Those landfills which received solid waste after October 9, 1991,
but will close prior to October 9, 1993, must meet only the Closure
requirements of Subtitle "D", which is the case with the Cherokee
landfill.
-------
PROGRAM NARRATIVE
The Cherokee Indian Reservation is located in the southern
Appalachian Mountains of western North Carolina and consists of
approximately 56,000 acres. The majority of the land and water
resources which comprise the Reservation is located in Swain and
Jackson counties--approximately 48,000 acres. The remaining lands
are located in the counties of Graham, Haywopd and Cherokee and is
present in a checkerboard pattern. The topography of much of the
Reservation lands 'lends itself to very s.teep slopes and narrow
valleys. The soils are thin and generally highly credible. Much
of the Reservation land is covered by timber and frequent logging
occurs on possessory holdings-by tribal members. Other major land
uses residential housing development, public building and
commercial enterprises associated with tourism—the Tribe's major
industry.
The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians operate our own water and
sewer treatment facilities as well as a solid waste landfill. The
Tribal Government in many ways functions similar to that of many
local governments in rural communities.
Siltation is the primary source of impairment to Tribal waters.
Due to the steep topography, any disturbance to the ground cover
has the potential of creating significant erosion problems. Major
sources of siltatiori on the Reservation have resulted from past
.logging practices, road construction, housing construction and
specifically, to this request daily cover on the Tribes landfill
facility (See attached photographs)".
The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians has for many years operated
and maintained a landfill facility for the disposal of solid waste.
The Tribe's landfill facility is located in the Painttown Community
of the Reservation. Even though the facility is not a permitted
landfill, operations during the past several years have included
compaction and daily cover.
-------
After extensive review of our landfill situation at Cherokee, it
has been decided that it is in the Tribes best interest to cease
receiving solid waste before the October 9, 1993, deadline and
close the landfill. This decision was based on the limited
available space/life of the existing facility, lack of area for
lateral expansion, operational cost of the facility under the new
regulations and long-term financial liability to the Tribe.
This decision left the Tribe basically with three options regarding
solid waste management on the Reservation. (1) Construct and
operate a new landfill facility; (2) Organize and participate in a
regional facility; or (3) Contract .with a private company for
landfill disposal. After thorough review of the options available
it has been decided to contract for off reservation disposal in a
privately owned and permitted landfill. Currently, the Tribe is
considering proposals for this service.
The Tribes strategy for solid waste disposal is as follows:
1. Cease receiving solid waste at the existing landfill
prior to October 9, 1993.
2. Contract with a private concern for solid waste disposal.
3. Construct a 'transfer center adjacent to the Tribes
existing landfill.
4. Operate and maintain a demolition landfill adjacent to
the existing solid waste landfill for the disposal of
yard waste and construction debris.
5. Implement Closure requirements of a final cover to
include an infiltration layer and erosion
layer on the portion of the landfill which has received
waste since October 9, 1991.
6. Continue business and residential collection of solid
waste in the same manner as in the past.
7. Collect a fee based on a per ton basis at the transfer
center for contract services and demolition disposal.
8. Continue the operation of the Cherokee Recycling Center.
-------
9. Work with and coordinate with adjacent counties, where
possible, to more efficiently manage solid waste in areas
such as recycling, source reduction, tires, white goods,
sewage sludge management, and sharing of equipment.
As can be seen, the new regulations have greatly increased the
complexity of solid waste management especially in that of small
communities such as ours. We are attempting to approach the
situation from the most cost efficient and environmentally sound
way. However, the cost to the Tribes for solid waste management is
expected to dramatically increase over the next few years.
At this time, .the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians is requesting
the U.S. EPA to assist us under Section 319(h) of the Clean Water
Act with the pressing issue of closing our existing landfill so to
meet the deadline. Proper closure of the Tribe's landfill facility
will provide a vegetative cover :to minimize erosion and deposition
in downstream areas, water control structures to best manage
runoff, and a minimum of a 18 inch layer of earthen material with
a minimum permeability of 1 x 10-5 CM/SEC so to isolate surface
water from the buried solid waste for ground water protection. The
attached work plan section of this application represents a more
detailed approach to the proposed activities in which we are
requesting assistance.
-------
WORK PLAN
LANDFILL CLOSURE, STABILIZATION & VEGETATION
As indicated in the Program Narrative, the Eastern Band of Cherokee
Indians intend to close our Reservation solid waste landfill prior
to October 9, 1993, so to avoid costly operational, post closure
care and financial liability as required by the 40 CFR 258 Subtitle
"D" criteria.
Currently, solid waste generated on the Cherokee Indian Reservation
is being disposed in a non-permitted facility which is being
operated as a landfill with compaction and daily cover. However,
as with many landfill situations, the Tribes facility lacks
adequate structures and vegetation for the management of erosion
resulting mainly from rainfall. Therefore, during times of heavy
rainfall the facility looses considerable amount of material used
for cover. Currently most daily cover for the operation is being
transferred to the landfill from several offsite locations. If the
landfill is abandoned without proper erosion and sediment control
measures, it is very obvious that a continued loss of soils will
persist resulting in downstream sedimentation, exposure of covered
solid waste with the potential for both surface and ground water
contamination. In light of the above, the Tribe is requesting both
technical and financial assistance from any available sources to
assist us in our efforts to close, protect and stabilize the
landfill facility. It is imperative that this effort be conducted
in a sound and conscientious manner for the longterm protection of
human health and the environment.
The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians is requesting the
Environmental Protection Agency's consideration of financial
-------
assistance under Section 319(h) in the amount of $65,000
(approximately 57% of the project) to assist the Tribe with this
effort. The total estimated cost of the project is $115,000.00.
The requested EPA amount is being matched with a request from the
Bureau of Indian Affairs for $50,000.00 under P.L. 93-638 grant
funds. These funds (approximately 43% of the project) are
eligible to be utilized in matching other Federal or non-Federal
grant programs as setforth in 25 CFR 272.33(a)(attached).
Basically the closure criteria require that the Tribe install a
final cover to minimize infiltration and erosion on the portion of
the landfill which has accepted waste since October 9, 1991
(approximately 2 acres). More specifically the infiltration layer
must be a minimum of 18 inches of earthen material that has a
permeability less than or equal to the permeability of any bottom
liner system or natural subsoils present, or a permeability no
greater than 1 X 10-5 CM/SEC, whichever is less. The erosion layer
must be a minimum of 6 inches earthen material capable of
sustaining native plant growth.
The entire landfill area consists of approximately 7.5 to 8 acres,
all of which lacks vegetation, sedimentation and water control
measures. Subtitle "D" only impacts the area of the landfill which
has accepted waste since October 9, 1991, but to implement BMP's
and to insure a longterm manageable situation, the Tribe intends to
address the entire landfill area.
It is the Tribe's intention to begin the actual closure activities
as soon after the October 9 date as possible. We have requested
technical assistance from the US EPA Region IV in regard to the
closure. To further save cost, the Soil Conservation Service has
agreed to provide engineering services in the area of design,
sediment control and inspection (See attached letter). The Tribe
will have to contract with a professional soils engineering firm to
collect on site soil samples as well as that of a borrow area to
assure meeting the permeability as required by Subtitle"D".
-------
Once the design has been completed, the Tribe will request bids for
the necessary earthen material to be placed on site as well as
sediment basin and water control construction. We intend to
utilize existing personnel and equipment (sheep foot) to compact
the cover material. Based on recommendations from the Soil
Conservation Service, appropriate vegetative and landscaping cover
will be applied.
It is envisioned that the project can be completed within 6 months
of project start or around April 6, 1994. Upon completion of the
closure, stabilization and vegetation, the Tribe will publicly
notify the general public certifying the closure, and file the
necessary reports with the EPA Regional Office. At this point the
closure will be complete. The implementation of BMP's at the
landfill facility in accordance with the required Subtitle "D"
criteria will allow for the longterm protection of groundwater
sources, limit erosion and resulting exposure of previously
disposed waste as well as minimizing sedimentation and runoff to
adjacent properties. Upon completion of the project, the Tribe
will be responsible for managing and overseeing the site as a
closed landfill facility.
To further complement this activity, the Tribe intends to request
additional funds from the Bureau of Indian Affairs in FY 1994.
These funds will be directed to stabilize the offsite borrow area
(yet to be identified due to required soil permeability tests)
additional fencing and road improvements through the closed
landfill connecting to the solid waste transfer center which will
be under construction in the fall of 1993. It is envisioned that
this proposed additional work will begin in the Spring of 1994,
depending upon the availability of funds.
-------
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Soil
Cons ervation.
Service
Southwestern NC RC&D
P.O. Box 1230, Vaynesville, N.C. 28786
June 29, 1993
Mr. Eddie Almond, Director
Tribal Environmental Office
P.O. Box 455
Cherokee, N.C. 28719
Dear Mr. Almond,
This is in regard to the proposed Land Fill Closure on the Cherokee Indian
Reservation in Cherokee, N.C.
The Soil Conservation Service can survey the site and calculate the volume
of fill material needed to finish the land fill site to a specified
elevation. Also, we can furnish design and layout information on sediment
basins needed to control run off. We cannot furnish any information on th
compaction needed to meet specific requirements. A private engineering
firm will be needed to furnish this information.
In addition to the above assistance, we can provide information on seeding
both the land fill site and borrow areas.
If you need additional information, please let me know.
real, Coordinator
Southwestern NC RC&D Council, Inc.
cc: J. Crandall
J. Wilkins
A. Wade
-------
25 CFR Ch. I (4-1-92 Edition)
•will include in the written notice
e specific reasons therefor.
7224 Deadline for Central Office
action.
Within 30 days of receipt of an ap-
cation for a grant under this part
e Commissioner shall take action as
escribed In §272.23. Extension of
is deadline will require consultation
:h and written consent of the appli-
at.
72.25 Grant execution and administra-
tlon.
a) -Grants approved pursuant to
72.17(a) shall be executed and ad-
nistered at the Area Office level.
b) Grants approved pursuant to
?2.17(b) shall be executed and ad-
alstered at the Central Office level
n'ided that the Commissioner may
•ignate an Area Office to execute or
sinister such a grant.
'Z2S Subjrants and subcontracts.
"he *ntee may make subgrants or
>co: .cts under this part provided
4. such subgrants or subcontracts
for the purpose for which the
nt was made and that the grantee
tins administrative and financial
sensibility over the activity and the
ds.
2,27. Acceptance of tribal plum for the
operation of Bureau programs.
iy Bureau program, excluding any
t resources program, which is
ned. replanned. designed or rede-
ed by a tribe under a grant provid-
nder this part, or from any other
jrce. shall be implemented by the
•au if requested by the tribe
ugh resolution. However, before
lementation the program shall
t the following requirments:
> Funding, staffing and other re-
ces are available to implement the
) The implementation of the plan
Id not cause a reduction in the
ity or quantity of services to Indi-
The plan meets the administra-
planning requirements of the
f*u. However, the plan need not
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior
meet the planning requirements for
the particular program.
(d) The plan provides a basis for the
delivery of satisfactory services to
Indian people, unless it can be demon-
strated by the Bureau by substantial
evidence that the plan will yield re-
sults which will be deleterious to the
welfare of the Indian people to be
served.
(e> The Commissioner may waive
any regulatory requirements given
elsewhere in this chapter or any other
requirements not inconsistent with
law. Inconsistencies between tribal
plans and Bureau manual, guidelines.
or other non-regulatory procedures
are not constraints on the tribal plans.
§ 272.28 Information collection.
The information collection require-
ments contained in 25 CFR part 272
are those necessary to comply with
the application .requirements of the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) Circular No. A-102. The Stand-
ard Form 424 and attachments pre-
scribed by such circular are approved
by OMB under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et sea.
and assigned approval number 0348-
0006. Section 272.14 describes the
types of information that satisfy the
application requirements of Circular
A-102 for the self determination
grant/program. Information necessary
for an application for Federal assist-
ance will be submitted on Standard
Form 424 which may be obtained with
application materials in accordance
with 25 CFR part 272. This informa-
tion is collected for the purpose of
making application for Federal assist-
ance. The information is needed for
proper administration of the grant
program and is required to obtain a
benefit.
[52 FR 38. Jan. 2. 19871
Subport C—General Grant
Requirements
§ 272.31 Applicability.
The general requirements for grant
administration in this subpart are ap-
plicable to all Bureau grants provided
to tribal governing bodies under this
part, except to the extent inconsistent
with an applicable Federal statute
regulation.
§ 272.32 Reports and availability of infcj
nation to Indians.
Any tribal governing body receivii|
a grant under this part shall make
formation and reports concerning thl
grant available to the Indian peop|
which it serves or represents. Access i
these data shall be requested in wri
ing and shall be made available by tl
tribe within 10 days of receipt of th|
request, subject to any exceptions pr
vided for in the Freedom of Informl
tion Act (5 U.S.C. 552), as amended ]
the Act of November 21. 1974 (Pub.
93-502: 88 Stat. 1561).
S 272.33 Matching share.
(a) Specific Federal laws notwitj
standing, grant funds provided
tribal governing bodies under this pal
may be used as matching shares fa
any other Federal or non-Feder|
grant programs which contribute
the purposes specified in § 272.12.
(b) Superintendents. Area Director!
and their designated representativl
will, upon tribal request, assist tribl
in obtaining information concernir"
other Federal grantor agencies wid
matching fund programs and wil
upon tribal request, provide technicl
assistance to tribes in developing ai
plications for submission to those Fej
eral grantor agencies.
§ 272.34 Performing personal sen ices.
Any grant provided under this pa
may include provisions for the pel
formance of personal sen-ices whicl
would otherwise be performed by Feq
eral employees.
S 272.35 Fair and uniform services.
Any grant provided under this paij
shall include provisions to assure
fair and uniform provision by tr
grantee of services and assistance tl
all Indians included within or affectef
by the intent, purpose and scope
that grant.
§ 272.36 Penalties.
If any officer, director, agent, or er
ployee of. or connected with, any
cipient of a grant, subgrant. contrac
645
-------
25 CFR Ch. I (4-1-92 Edition)
i for revision or amendment
sider their views in preparing
osed revision or amendment.
Jsent the proposed revision or
ent to the Committees on In-
Jid Insular Affairs of the
States Senate and House of
itatives.
Jlish any proposed revisions or
ents in the FEDERAL REGISTER
osed rulemaking to provide
? notice to. and receive com-
om all interested parties.
ter consideration of all com-
eceived. publish the regula-
the FEDERAL REGISTER in final
: less than 30 days before the
y are made effective.
mually consult with Indian
ind national and regional
Organizations about the need
ion or amendment, and con-
ir views in preparing the revi-
mendment.
hing in this section shall pre-
dian tribes or national or re-
ganizations from initiating re-
or revisions or amendments.
o r graphs (a).
-------
-------
-------
-------
TRIBAL COORDINATORS 6/94
Anne Fenn
U.S. EPA Region 1
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 565-3927
Christine Yost
U.S. EPA.Region 2
26 Federal Plaza 2PM-EI
New York, N.Y. 10007
(212) 264-6722
Arthur Linton
U.S. EPA Region 4
EAB-4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347^-3776
Claudia Johnson-Schultz
U.S. EPA Region 5 (5ME14)
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886-6108
Karen Bond
U.S. EPA Region 6 (6W-QT)
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733
(214) 655-6682
Barbara Baker
U.S. EPA Region 8
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202
(303) 293-1656
Steve Roy, Chris Kelly
U.S. EPA Region 10 (WD-126)
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 553-2118
(206) 553-1566
Mahesh Podar,
Indians Program Coordinator
Office of Water
U.S. EPA (4102)
401 M Street, SW.
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 260-7818
Roxanne DiLaura
U.S. EPA Region 7
762 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913) 551-7810
Wendell Smith
U.S. EPA Region 9 (E-4)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 744-2018
Martin Topper
National Indian Program
Coordinator
U.S. EPA (2252)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 260-5051
Pamela J. Harris
Indian Coordinator
for the Nonpoint Source Program
Office of Water, OWOW (4503 F)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 260-8077
Karen Rothstein
OW Indian Program Coordinator
U.S. EPA (4102)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C.
(202) 260-7519
-------
NONPOINT SOURCE COORDINATORS
Aug. 30, 1994.
Bob Morehouse, NFS Coordinator
U.S. EPA, Region I
John F. Kennedy Federal Bldg.
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
(617) 565-3513
FAX 617-565-4940
Barbara Spinweber, NFS Coordinator
U.S. EPA, Region II - 2WMWSP
26 Federal Plaza, Room 813
New York, New York 10278
(212) 264-8632
FAX 212-264-2194
Hank Zygmunt, NPS Coordinator
U.S. EPA - Region III
Chestnut Building
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 597-3429
FAX 215-597-7906 or 215-597-3359
Lynn Shuyler, NPS Contact
Chesapeake Bay Program
410 Severn Ave., Suite 109
Annapolis, MD 21403
(410)267-5746
BAY OFC. (410) 267-5700
FAX (410) 267-5777
Maryann Gerber, NPS Coordinator
U.S. EPA - Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
(404) 347-2126 ext. 6580
FAX 404-347-3269
Tom Davenport, NPS Coordinator
U.S. EPA - Region V
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, Illinois 60604-3507
(312) 886-0209
FAX 312-886-7804
Brad Lamb, NPS Coordinator
U.S. EPA - Region VI
1445 Ross Ave.
Dallas, Texas 75202
(214) 665-6683
FAX 214-665-6689
Julie Elfving, NPS Coordinator
U.S. EPA Region VII
726 Minnesota Ave.
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913) 551-7475
FAX 913r551-7765
David Rathke, NPS Coordinator
U.S. EPA - Region VIII
One Denver Place, 999 18th St.
Denver, CO 80202-2413
(303) 293-1703
FAX 303-391-6957
Jovita E. Pajarillo, NPS Coordinator
U.S. EPA - Region IX
75 -Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, Ca 94105
(415) 744-2011:
FAX (415) 744-1078
Elbert Moore, NPS Coordinator
U.S. EPA Region X
1200 6th Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 553-4181
FAX 206-553-0165
-------
-------
-------
-------
------- |