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
ٰ

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

-------

-------

-------

-------

-------