:; - ." * c : ** pue sp99|\| J9;e/v\9;se/\/\ ue|pu| ss9j6uoQ o} yodey ------- Cover illustration prepared by Alphena Armao of the Navajo Tribe, Winslow, Arizona. ------- \ I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 JAN t I 1989 THE ADMINISTRATOR Honorable George Bush President of the Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Mr. President: Enclosed is the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) "Report to Congress: Indian Wastewater Treatment Needs and Assistance." This Report is unique in that it addresses only the needs of Indian Tribes and how EPA intends to address those needs. It is required by Section 518 (b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) as amended by the Water Quality Act (WQA) of 1987. EPA is pleased to be involved in establishing the groundwork for the administration of the Indian provisions of the Act. This Report, prepared by EPA in cooperation with the Indian Health Service (IHS), assesses the capital investment required to build or improve needed wastewater treatment facilities for American Indians. This Report also describes the degree to which Indian needs can be met with funds available through the construction grants program and defines obstacles that may prevent these needs from being met. Further, the Report discusses how EPA plans to provide grants and technical assistance to Tribes in the development of waste treatment management plans and construction of treatment works. As directed by the Act, we have also included our recommendations on how to maximize Indian participation in the wastewater treatment program and in other programs mandated by the Act. Consistent with the intent of the Act, EPA placed special emphasis on Indian participation during the preparation of the Report, particularly in developing the assessment methodology and strategy for implementing the set-aside program, established under Section 518 (c) of the Act. ------- I would be pleased to discuss further the results of this assessment and the Report reconunendations at your convenience. Sincerely Lee M. Thomas Enclosure ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 JAN n THE ADMINISTRATOR Honorable James C. Wright Speaker of the House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Mr. Speaker: Enclosed is the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) "Report to Congress: Indian Wastewater Treatment Needs and Assistance." This Report is unique in that it addresses only the needs of Indian Tribes and how EPA intends to address those needs. It is required by Section 518 (b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) as amended by the Water Quality Act (WQA) of 1987. EPA is pleased to be involved in establishing the groundwork for the administration of the Indian provisions of the Act. This Report, prepared by EPA in cooperation with the Indian Health Service (IHS), assesses the capital investment required to build or improve needed wastewater treatment facilities for American Indians. This Report also describes the degree to which Indian needs can be met with funds available through the construction grants program and defines obstacles that may prevent these needs from being met. Further, the Report discusses how EPA plans to provide grants and technical assistance to Tribes in the development of waste treatment management plans and construction of treatment works. As directed by the Act, we have also included our recommendations on how to maximize Indian participation in the wastewater treatment program and in other programs mandated by the Act. Consistent with the intent of the Act, EPA placed special emphasis on Indian participation during the preparation of the Report, particularly in developing the assessment methodology and strategy for implementing the set-aside program, established under Section 518(c) of the Act. ------- I would be pleased to discuss further the results of this assessment and the Report recommendations at your convenience. Sincerely Lee M. Thomas Enclosure ------- REPORT TO CONGRESS: INDIAN WASTEWATER TREATMENT NEEDS AND ASSISTANCE January 1989 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Municipal Pollution Control (WH-546) Washington, B.C. 20460 (202) 382-7251 Prepared in cooperation with U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Indian Health Service Office of Environmental Health and Engineering Rockville, MD 20857 (301) 443-1046 ------- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many individuals have been involved in the preparation of this report. It is virtually impossible to acknowledge all the individuals who contributed their knowledge and time to help with the assessment and report effort, but we would like to give a special thanks to the IHS Headquarters, area, and district office staff engineers; EPA Regional and State staff; and our contractor in this effort, Science Applications International Corporation. We would especially like to thank all the Indian Tribes who provided their insights and comments on the report and assessment methodology, and who made possible our site visits to reservations. In addition, we gratefully acknowledge the following individuals of the Indian Workgroup, established to guide development of the Indian needs assessment and the Indian set-aside program, for their active support and cooperation: Larry Bailey Dennis Coochyouma Technical Advisor, Minnesota Rural Water Association Public Works Director, Water and Sanitation, Gila River Indian Community Thorton Coochyouma Director, Water Resources Program, Hopi Tribe Malcolm Dalton/ General Manager, Navajo Tribal Utilities Hap Mayberry (alt.) Authority/Chief Laboratory Technician, Navajo Tribal Utilities Authority John Printup Director, Contract Compliance Section, Bureau of Affirmative Action, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and member of Oneida Tribe 111 ------- TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION 5 PART 1: NEEDS ASSESSMENT 7 Scope and Definitions 7 Results of the Needs Assessment 8 Information Sources 15 Needs Compared to Current EPA Authorization Levels. . 17 Other Sources of Federal Financial Assistance .... 19 PART 2: INDIAN SET-ASIDE WASTEWATER TREATMENT GRANT PROGRAM 21 Background 21 Administrative Framework to Manage the Indian Set-Aside 21 PART 3: PARTICIPATION BY INDIAN TRIBES IN CWA PROGRAMS. . 25 Background 25 Tribal Participation and Program Status 25 Continuing Participation 28 APPENDIX A: LIST OF SITE VISITS A-l APPENDIX B: OTHER SOURCES OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR INDIAN WASTEWATER TREATMENT B-l APPENDIX C: LIST OF ACRONYMS C-l ------- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report has been prepared in cooperation with the Indian Health Service (IHS) to meet the requirements of Section 518(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) as amended by the Water Quality Act (WQA) of 1987. The report's five major objectives are as follows: 1) to summarize EPA's assessment of Indian wastewater treatment construction needs, 2) to report on the degree to which such needs will be met through CWA funding, 3) to identify any obstacles which may prevent such needs from being met, 4) to discuss how EPA plans to implement the Indian Set-Aside Program established under Section 518(c) of the CWA, and 5) to describe EPA's efforts to maximize Indian participation in CWA programs. NEEDS ASSESSMENT EPA's estimate of the wastewater treatment needs for eligible Indian Tribes is about $270 million (in 1987 dollars). Approximately 55% of these needs are for the construction of treatment facilities, while the remainder are for the construction of collection systems and house connections. The 1,510 projects are to serve a Tribal population of 402,000 with identified needs. These needs are not distributed evenly throughout the United States. Needs are concentrated in three areas—Alaska, Oklahoma, and in the south- western States of New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Utah, and Nevada. The CWA defines a Tribe as "any Indian tribe, band, group, or community recognized by the Secretary of the Interior and exercising governmental authority over a Federal Indian reservation." In November 1988, Congress expanded the eligibility of the Indian Set-Aside Grant Program to include former reservations in Oklahoma and Alaska Native Villages as defined in the Alaska Native Claims Act (P.L. 92-203). Therefore, the needs of these former reservations and Native Villages are included in the needs assessment. Due to the rural location of most Indian Tribes and the complexities of operation and maintenance, the most common wastewater systems are individual septic systems and low-maintenance community systems such as lagoons. This study found that of the projects for which the necessary technical data are available, approximately 55% are to correct subsurface discharges, while over 25% are to address surface water discharges and about 15% are for no-discharge or land- application facilities. Likewise, surface-water discharge facilities serve approximately 25% of the Indian population with identified needs. These results suggest that groundwater may be more at risk than surface water from existing problems. This might pose some concern for Indian families that rely on on-site drinking water wells located near failing on-site septic systems. The needs assessment focuses on the residential needs of Tribes, rather than commercial and industrial needs for which little data were ------- available. In addition, the assessment identifies needs only for the current population, rather than for the future population, because of the limited availability of accurate population projections and planning data on a nationwide basis. This EPA assessment differs from the annual IHS assessment of Indian needs in several important ways. First, although the IHS data system was the primary source of information for this assessment, EPA enhanced this information with data available from other sources. These sources included additional information from IHS area and district office staff, 36 site visits to reservations, the EPA biennial Needs Survey, EPA Regional offices. States, and individual Tribes. When available, needs data provided directly by Tribes were used in place of information obtained from other sources. Second, IHS emphasizes public health needs, whereas EPA focuses more heavily on needs to meet the water quality goals of the CWA. It should be noted that the "needs" reported in this assessment were not defined, collected, or documented in the same manner as the EPA Needs Survey, required biennially by the CWA. Resources did not permit, for example, a verified, comprehensive identification of Indian needs to comply with the water quality goals of the CWA. However, inclusion of a Tribe's needs in this assessment is not a prerequisite for eligibility under the set-aside. NEEDS COMPARED TO CWA FUNDING If the authorized Indian Set-Aside Grant Program established by the WQA is fully funded through appropriations, the set-aside (one-half of one percent of the national allotment) translates into a total of $30 million over the 4-year period FY 1987-1990. The funds set aside by the WQA are thus about 10% of the amount that will be required to satisfy all $270 million in identified Indian needs. In addition to the set-aside program, Indians will also continue to be eligible to compete for construction grant funds through the State priority list process established by the CWA. As of February 1988, a total of $48 billion in construction grant funds have been awarded to municipalities under this process since 1972, with about $25 million awarded to Indian Tribes. An additional seven Indian projects totaling $7 million are proposed by States for grant funding in FY 1988 and 1989. Based on this information and the eventual phase-out of the Construction Grants Program, it appears unlikely that funding from State construction grant allotments or State revolving loan programs will play a major role in satisfying Indian wastewater construction needs. EPA grant funds are not the only source of wastewater construction financial assistance available to Indian Tribes. Other agencies provide some financial assistance to Tribes as well, including the Indian Health Service, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and, to a lesser extent, the Farmers Home ------- Administration (FmHA). In FY 1987, IHS and HUD were the primary sources of financial assistance to Indians. EPA WASTEWATER TREATMENT GRANTS FOR INDIAN TRIBES EPA and IHS are working together in consultation with an EPA/ Tribal/IHS workgroup and eligible Indian Tribes to implement a program to award grants from the Indian set-aside. The general strategy used in setting up the program has been to blend the most appropriate portions of the current EPA and IHS programs and to look outside those programs where necessary to meet Tribal needs. The following highlights provide a brief overview of the proposed program: o After consideration of several options for setting priorities among Indian projects, EPA is currently proposing a national priority system and project selection criteria based primarily on water quality and public health needs. EPA will use the selection criteria to rank projects and then notify Tribal applicants of their projects' priority status. Tribes with projects ranked within the fundable range may then prepare grant applications. Project requirements will be streamlined for grants from this set-aside based on input from EPA, IHS, and Indian Tribes. EPA will retain responsibility to assure project certification, grant closeout, and enforcement. o At a Tribe's request and subject to the availability of manpower, IHS will assist Indian Tribes with the preparation of application materials. IHS may also be requested by the grant recipient to review project applications, provide evaluations to EPA for grant awards, and provide project oversight. In areas where IHS is not available or not selected to work with the Indian Tribe, the EPA Regional office will fulfill these respons ibi1 it ies. o In September 1988, EPA distributed a draft guidance document to all eligible Tribes for comment. This draft guidance described in detail the proposed selection criteria, project requirements, and the grant process. EPA will incorporate the comments into a final guidance document and initiate the set-aside program early in 1989. o One year after the initial grants are awarded under this arrangement, EPA, in consultation with IHS and Indian Tribes, will evaluate the process for administering this set-aside program and make necessary adjustments in program operating procedures. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MAXIMIZING INDIAN PARTICIPATION IN CWA PROGRAMS In order to encourage continuing Indian participation in CWA programs, EPA will: ------- o Provide EPA's Regional Indian Coordinators and other Agency personnel with information that will increase Tribal knowledge of EPA's Indian programs and assist Tribes in responding to issues or activities. o Attend meetings, when possible, of Indian Tribes and organizations to expand the Agency's understanding of the specific needs, priorities, and concerns of Indian Tribes. o Reduce the administrative requirements, where possible, for Tribal governments that wish to apply for, or administer CWA programs. o Coordinate with other Federal agencies, States, and other EPA programs in technical assistance and communication efforts. o Provide information to Tribes on available technical materials, workshops, and training programs. o Include Indian Tribes in the development and review of regulations pertaining to Indian Tribes. ------- INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in cooperation with the Indian Health Service (IHS) to satisfy the requirements of Section 518(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) as amended by the Water Quality Act (WQA) (refer to inside back cover). It is the first report on Indian wastewater treatment needs to be prepared by EPA. Prior to the passage of the WQA, Indian Tribes were defined as municipalities for the purpose of receiving construction grants and technical assistance from EPA under Title II of the CWA. No reserves were set aside to address Tribal needs and there were no unique operating arrangements established for Tribes. Under the Construction Grants Program, appropriations were allotted to States who distributed these funds according to an EPA-approved priority list system. As of February 1988, a total of $48 billion dollars in construction grant funds have been awarded to municipalities under this system since 1972, with 29 grants totaling $25 million awarded to Indian Tribes. The report has been organized into three parts. Part 1 will discuss the results of the needs assessment and compare these needs to the funds available to Indian Tribes through the Indian Set-Aside Grant Program established by Section 518(c) of the WQA. Part 2 will address EPA's plans for implementation of the Indian Set-Aside Grant Program. Part 3 will address Indian participation in CWA programs. The specific objectives of the report are as follows: 1) to summarize EPA's assessment of Indian wastewater treatment construction needs, 2) to report on the degree to which such needs will be met through CWA set-aside or priority list funding, 3) to identify any obstacles which may prevent such needs from being met, 4) to discuss how EPA plans to implement the CWA Set-Aside Grant Program and provide funding to Indian Tribes for development of wastewater treatment management plans and construction of sewage treatment facilities, and 5) to describe EPA's efforts to maximize Indian participation in CWA programs. The IHS provided the baseline data for the needs assessment and was very helpful in collecting supplemental data needed by EPA. Enhancements to the baseline data included information obtained from IHS area and district office staff, 36 site visits to reservations, the biennial EPA Needs Survey, EPA Regional offices, States, and individual Tribes. Because IHS focuses on public health problems, EPA ------- also expanded the data to ensure that needs to comply with the water quality goals of the Clean Water Act were considered. In preparing this report, EPA has sought Indian participation to the greatest extent possible. A workgroup, which was formed by EPA specifically to guide the Indian wastewater (sewage) treatment needs assessment and development of the Set-Aside Grant Program, included Indians of both large and small Tribes from different geographic areas. They contributed their personal perspectives and technical experience. The technical qualifications of the workgroup members varied, ranging from Tribal utilities and water quality experts to Tribal Council members. EPA convened workgroup meetings in June and November of 1987, and in May of 1988, which were attended by these experts from Indian Tribes; IHS; EPA's Office of General Counsel, Office of Water, and Office of Federal Activities; and the EPA Regions. The two most recent workgroup meetings were open to the public, with one held in Arizona near a large Indian population and one held on the East Coast to provide opportunities for participation of Tribes from different geographic areas. In addition, EPA participated in five workshops to brief over 100 Tribes on the Indian provisions of the Act, made presentations at national meetings of Indian organizations, and visited 36 reservations to speak to Tribal members. Finally, all Federally-recognized reservation Tribes were given an opportunity to comment on the draft of this report and to review the needs assessment data for their Tribes. Tribes on former reservations in Oklahoma and some Alaska Native Villages provided data directly to EPA for the needs assessment. Comments received after the comment period are being included in the official records for use in any future enhancements and program development activities. In addition, all States and appropriate Federal agencies were provided an opportunity to comment on the report as well. ------- PART 1: NEEDS ASSESSMENT SCOPE AND DEFINITIONS The Indian needs assessment estimates the wastewater treatment needs of eligible Tribes. The CWA defines an Indian Tribe as "any Indian tribe, band, group, or community recognized by the Secretary of the Interior and exercising governmental authority over a Federal Indian reservation." In November 1988 (P.L. 100-581), Congress expanded the eligibility of the Indian Set-Aside Grant Program established under Section 518(c) of the CWA to include former reservations in Oklahoma and Alaska Native Villages as defined in the Alaska Native Claims Act (P.L. 92-203). Inclusion of a Tribe's needs in the assessment does not have a bearing on eligibility for a grant under the set-aside. In other words, a Tribe does not have to have its needs reported in the assessment to be eligible for set-aside funds. For purposes of this report, "needs" are reported as cost estimates for construction of vrastewater treatment or conveyance facilities to correct public health or water quality problems. The needs reported in this assessment are for the current population only. Future estimates are not provided because of the limited availability of accurate population projections and planning data on a nationwide basis. The assessment focuses almost exclusively on residential needs, rather than commercial or industrial needs, because this information was not readily available. Many Tribes commented on the residential emphasis because they are interested in pursuing economic development on their reservations to improve their economic base. They believe that these commercial and industrial needs could be substantial. In addition, the needs of some non-Indians living on reservation lands are included, but only to a limited degree; these needs are not easily distinguished from strictly Indian needs and are relatively small. This needs assessment is not strictly limited to eligibilities under EPA or IHS programs. The definition of a need applied in this assessment is more inclusive, in several ways, than that used in the biennial EPA Needs Survey, and therefore the two assessments cannot be directly compared. Needs presented in this assessment may include costs for land acquisition that are not part of a treatment process, house connections, or other costs not included in the biennial EPA Needs Survey. While these costs are not included in the biennial Needs Survey because they are not eligible for Federal construction grant funding, they are included in this Indian assessment due to their eligibility under other Federal programs such as those of IHS and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). ------- More importantly, the biennial EPA Needs Survey also has a prerequisite for strict documentation that must be met before a need may be included in that assessment. Many Indian Tribes do not currently have facility plans or other documents required by EPA for needs documentation; therefore, the same documentation criteria have not been applied to the Indian assessment. Also, because this is the first assessment of Indian needs by EPA, the parameters were broadly defined to ensure that the assessment would be as comprehensive as possible. RESULTS OF THE NEEDS ASSESSMENT National Indian Needs EPA's estimate of the capital investment required to address Indian needs for wastewater treatment facilities is approximately $270 million (in 1987 dollars). This figure represents the needs of approximately 402,000 Indians with identified needs for 1,510 projects. Of the $270 million in current identified Indian needs, Exhibit 1 shows that 55% is for the construction of treatment systems, while about 35% is for collection and approximately 10% is for house connections. As discussed above, house connections are not eligible for EPA funds under Title II of the CWA, but are eligible under the programs of other Federal agencies. Two primary factors determine the types of wastewater treatment technologies currently serving Indian Tribes. The first is that the rural location of many Tribes makes individual systems appropriate in many areas. The second factor is that systems are designed to be relatively simple to operate in order to minimize operation and maintenance requirements and costs. As a result, most existing Indian wastewater treatment facilities are either septic systems or low-maintenance community systems such as lagoons. Of the 80% of existing facilities for which data are available,* approximately 45% are septic systems and 35% are lagoons. Approxi- mately 10% of existing facilities are mechanical plants and the majority of these mechanical plants (85%) are located in Oklahoma. The predominance of septic systems among facilities serving Indian populations is also reflected in the facility discharge data— most are subsurface dischargers. Of the 80% of projects for which While needs (cost) data and population data are reported for all identified projects, some technical data, such as type and level of treatment, were not available for all projects. 8 ------- EXHIBIT 1 TREATMENT, COLLECTION, AND HOUSE CONNECTION INDIAN NEEDS Collection 35% House Connection 10% Treatment Total Identified Needs • $270 Million (1987 Dollars) information is available, about 55% are subsurface dischargers serving approximately 40% of the population. If these subsurface discharge facilities are not operated properly, there is a possibility of groundwater contamination, and, in particular, contamination of domestic wells used for drinking water. By comparison, over 25% of projects with needs are currently discharging to surface water and serve approximately 25% of the population. Approximately 10% of projects are reported to have no discharge at all (e.g. non- discharging lagoons), and only about 5% are land application facilities. Although no direct measures of wastewater discharge quality permit compliance, or receiving water quality were available to estimate existing facility impacts on surface or groundwater, some indicators of the nature of wastewater treatment problems are available. One indication of wastewater treatment problems on Indian lands is the level of treatment provided by facilities serving Indian populations. Approximately 20% of the existing population with identified needs receives less than secondary treatment, which is evenly divided between those receiving no treatment and those with primary treatment, with an additional 30% not reported. After needs are met, only approximately 5% will be served by less than secondary ------- EXHIBIT 2 INDIAN POPULATION BY PROPOSED LEVEL OF TREATMENT 140 120- 100- 3 a n d s v i Septic Primary/None- Secondary Advanced Not Reported Level of Treatment •Primary treatment for people served by facilities with subsurface discharge or marine discharge waivers. No treatment for people served by ten projects in remote areas of Alaska. Total Population with Identified Needs • 402,000 EXHIBIT 3 INDIAN NEEDS BY PROPOSED LEVEL OF TREATMENT Secondary 30% Advanced 5% Not Reported 20% Primary/None* 15% Septic 30% •Primary treatment for people served by facilities with subsurface discharges or marine discharge waivers. No treatment for people served by ten projects In remote areas of Alaska. Total Identified Needs • $270 Million (1987 Dollars) 10 ------- treatment facilities (see Exhibit 2).* These improvements in facilities should result in water quality benefits to both surface and groundwater, depending on the type of discharge. In addition to the above improvements, septic systems, when functioning properly, help prevent groundwater pollution problems. The population that will be served by septic systems after needs are met will increase from approximately 20% to 30%. Stated in terms of needs, approximately 30% of estimated costs will be used to construct septic systems, with another 30% for facilities providing secondary treatment and 5% providing advanced treatment (see Exhibit 3). The proportion of needs for each treatment level generally corresponds with the portion of the population to be served by each. Community systems account for approximately two-thirds of the Indian needs and three-fourths of the Indian population with identified needs, but only about one-half of the proposed projects; individual systems make up the remainder. As another indicator of the severity and types of problems that proposed projects are designed to correct, the Indian workgroup developed two different indices. Based on familiarity with site conditions, IHS area and district office staff used these indices to rank projects for public health hazard and sewage discharge problems. For the projects for which data were available, results indicate that over three-fourths of identified projects are judged necessary to correct known public health hazards. Likewise, IHS staff determined that over one-half of projects are to address discharges in regular or occasional violation of permit conditions. Distribution of National Needs Indian needs are not evenly distributed throughout the country, as illustrated by Exhibit 4 and the maps in Exhibits 5-7. Overall, there are three areas in which the identified needs are concentrated. Alaska, Oklahoma, and the Southwest each account for approximately one-fourth of national needs. The East Coast (Nashville) IHS Area accounts for approximately 10% of national needs, with the remaining IHS Areas (as outlined in the maps in Exhibits 5-7) accounting for less than 5% each. The southwestern States of New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, and Colorado (contained in the Navajo, Albuquerque, Phoenix, and Tucson Primary treatment facilities, however, will not be discharging to surface waters or will have a marine discharge waiver, and there- fore will not be required under the CWA to achieve secondary treatment. 11 ------- EXHIBIT 4: INDIAN NEEDS AND POPULATION SERVED BT PROPOSED PROJECTS IHS Area Needs (Dollars in Millions) Population Served Projects (People in Thousands) (Number) Aberdeen Alaska Albuquerque Bemidj i Billings California East Coast (Nashville) Oklahoma Navajo Phoenix Portland Tucson $10 69 18 9 3 5 29 61 33 16 13 4 34 43 51 7 35 6 20 103 47 27 21 8 80 110 40 40 20 60 20 720 250 80 30 60 Total $270 402 1,510 EXHIBIT 5 DISTRIBUTION OF CURRENT INDIAN NEEDS BY IHS AREAS (1987 Dollars in Millions) Portland 13 Billings 3 Aberdeen 10 California 5 Phoenix 16 Tucson 4 Navajo Alaska 33 Albuquerque 69 18 Total Identified Needs = $270 Million (1987 Dollars) 12 ------- EXHIBIT 6 DISTRIBUTION OF INDIAN POPULATION WITH NEEDS BY IHS AREAS (Population In Thousands) Billings 35 Aberdeen 34 Portland 21 California 6 Phoenix 27 Tucson 8 Navajo Alaska 47 Albuquerque 43 51 Total Population with Identified Needs = 402,000 IHS Areas) also account for a large portion of the population with identified needs—one-third of the population with needs is concen- trated in these southwestern States. Oklahoma Area Tribes make up another one-fourth of the population with needs, and each of the other IHS Areas accounts for 10% or less of the population with needs. In terms of the number of identified projects, nearly one-half are in the Oklahoma IHS Area alone, and another one-fourth are located in the Southwest. Needs of Former Reservations in Oklahoma Compared to Reservation Needs The nature of needs for Tribes in Oklahoma differs from those in reservation areas. A total of 103,000 Indians in Oklahoma were found to have needs totaling $61 million. These needs are for 710 projects in Oklahoma alone, representing more projects than for all reservation areas combined. This is due, in part, to the large Indian population and to the fact that Oklahoma Tribes live in small, dispersed Indian 13 ------- EXHIBIT 7 Portland DISTRIBUTION OF INDIAN PROJECTS TO MEET CURRENT NEEDS BY IMS AREAS (Number of Projects) Aberdeen 80 Bemidji 40 Tucson 60 Navajo Alaska 250 Albuquerque 110 40 California 60 Total Number of Indian Projects = 1,510 communities, resulting in many systems that serve a mixture of Indian and non-Indian populations. Many Indians in Oklahoma live in distinct communities comprised almost entirely of Indians, while other Indian communities have a higher proportion of non-Indians. While the percent of existing septic systems and lagoons in Oklahoma is similar to reservation areas, many more facilities for which data are available are mechanical plants—15% of existing systems (or over 100 projects) compared to less than 5% (or approximately 10 projects) in reservation areas. Likewise, more existing facilities are community systems (50% compared to 35% for reservation areas) and have surface water discharges (almost 40% compared to less than 15% in reservation areas). Needs of Alaska Native Villages Compared to Reservation Needs With the exception of the Metlakatla Indian Community, Alaska Natives do not reside on Federal reservation lands. The identified needs for Alaska Native Villages total approximately $69 million for 14 ------- 110 projects serving a population of 43,000. The needs for Alaska Native Villages also differ in several ways from those of Tribes living on reservations. Of the Alaska Native population with identified needs, 25% currently have no treatment, and another 30% have only primary treatment. This is approximately triple the comparable statistics for reservation areas. The permafrost conditions also affect the nature of the needs for Alaska Native Villages. Per capita costs are approximately three times that of reservation areas. In addition, collection costs are a higher proportion and treatment costs are a lower proportion of total needs. Collection costs are higher because of the unique permafrost conditions. In addition, a much smaller percentage of facilities are individual systems because septic systems cannot be used in many areas—for those facilities for which data are available, only approximately 15% of the projects and less than 10% of the population with identified needs are currently using septic systems, compared to almost twice the comparable percentages in reservation areas. Many Alaska Native Villages currently rely on honey bucket hauling systems or pit privies for sewage facilities. INFORMATION SOURCES The Indian needs assessment was designed to be responsive to the CWA and to be as comprehensive and representative of Indian needs as possible. EPA was specifically directed by the Act to work coopera- tively with IHS in conducting the assessment. After discussions with IHS and the Indian workgroup, EPA designed the assessment to maximize existing information from the Indian Health Service, and enhanced this information with data available from other sources. These sources included additional information from IHS area and district office staff, the biennial EPA Needs Survey data base, EPA Regional offices, States, individual Tribes, and 36 site visits to reservations and Indian communities. Special efforts were made to expand upon existing information in regions where data were thought to be incomplete such as Oklahoma and Alaska. Indian Health Service Data EPA used the information in the IHS Sanitation Facility Data System (SFDS) as a baseline for the needs assessment. Revised annually, SFDS contains information on the wastewater treatment, water supply, and solid waste needs of Indian Tribes for existing homes only (which may include newly-constructed homes not yet served). This information is collected to assist in implementing the Indian Sanita- tion Facilities Act (P.L. 86-121). Based on Indian workgroup and EPA guidance, IHS area and district office staff extensively reviewed, updated, and expanded the information in the SFDS data base. Expanded information included a disaggregation of cost estimates into treatment, collection, and house connection costs; facility information on existing and proposed type of treatment (e.g., lagoon, septic tanks, mechanical plant, etc.) and level of treatment (primary, 15 ------- secondary, advanced, or none); number of people to be served by the proposed facility; and information on the severity of public health, sewage discharge, and drinking water problems related to existing facilities. Some Tribes commented that all of their needs are not fully reported in the SFDS data base. For example, overcrowding of existing homes is a problem in many areas around the country. Multiple families will sometimes live in one house designed for only one family because of the shortage of good housing. Because the overcrowded house is already served by sewage facilities, the need is not included as an unmet need in SFDS. As a result, there is a "latent" existing need that is not always captured in the reported IHS data. However, when a new house is physically constructed to alleviate the overcrowding problem, the new home will be reported as a need if it does not have sewage facilities. Several Tribes also noted that site feasibility problems sometimes precluded inclusion of needs estimates in the IHS data base. In particular, Tribes in the Bemidji Area (which encompasses Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan) noted a high percentage of soils with percolation problems, which are not suited to on-site systems. In situations where such a site had been previously reviewed and disapproved for development by IHS, houses or trailers physically located on the site would not be included in the SFDS data base. EPA Data Enhancements made by EPA to the data supplied by IHS included information obtained from 36 site visits and the addition of data from the 1986 biennial EPA Needs Survey on facilities serving Indian populations (with cost data updated to 1987 dollars). EPA Needs Survey facilities serving Indian populations were identified by EPA Regional office and State environmental agency staff. In addition, needed facilities identified by IHS were compared, where possible, to information on facilities in the biennial EPA Needs Survey data base to obtain the best information. When costs differed between the two information sources, the data were reviewed, and the higher of the two estimates was selected for inclusion in the assessment when professional judgment indicated that the costs were justified. In Alaska, where most Native Americans do not live on reservations, EPA contacted the State to obtain data on approximately 30 of the smaller villages and some predominantly Indian metropolitan areas that were not addressed in the IHS data base. These data were also added to the needs assessment. Tribal Input As discussed above, EPA made 36 site visits during which additional data were collected and verified (see list of site visits 16 ------- in Appendix A). Four of these site visits were to reservations on the East Coast and three were made in Oklahoma, areas where data were thought to be less complete than other areas of the country. Data collection for Tribes in Oklahoma involved more direct Indian participation than for some other areas. In Oklahoma, Indians live in communities served by municipal facilities, many of which have large non-Indian service populations as well. As a result, the majority of facilities serving Indians in Oklahoma are included in the biennial EPA Needs Survey. EPA met with representatives of all Federally-recognized Tribes in the eastern half of Oklahoma to obtain population and other data on needed facilities. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Oklahoma Department of Public Health central and field offices, IHS area office, and Indian housing authorities also provided information. Based on population statistics for Oklahoma Tribes and on municipal facility service population information, the existing needs estimates were extrapolated to account for the needs of Indian populations not previously included in either the IHS or EPA data bases. All 34 Tribes in the State (both the eastern and western portions) were given the opportunity to provide additional data on their Tribes. In addition, all Federally-recognized reservation Tribes were advised of their needs as included in this report. Additional needs data provided directly by Tribes were included in the assessment, and follow-up phone calls were made to obtain more detailed information where necessary. Some Alaska Native Villages also provided data to EPA for inclusion. Needs data provided directly by Tribes were used in place of information obtained from other sources. Several commentors noted that some Tribes are not in a position to comment on sewage needs data for their Tribes, due to the fact that they have not yet developed the engineering or community planning expertise required to adequately evaluate this information. As a result, while all Tribes were provided the opportunity to comment on data relating to their Tribes, some may not have been in a position to comment on the completeness of the information. NEEDS COMPARED TO CURRENT EPA AUTHORIZATION LEVELS Current authorization levels for the Indian set-aside are specified in the Water Quality Act of 1987 as one-half of one percent of the annual construction grant appropriation. If the program is fully funded through appropriations, approximately $30 million will be available over the 4-year period FY 1987-1990. Current authorizations therefore represent approximately 10% of the estimated costs to address the identified wastewater treatment needs of Indian Tribes (see Exhibit 8). The $30 million in set-aside funds are not the only source of EPA grant funds for Indian wastewater treatment facilities. Indians have received a limited number of grants through the State priority system process for construction grants, and will continue to be eligible to compete for these grants as long as these funds are available. Funds 17 ------- EXHIBIT 8 COMPARISON OF INDIAN NEEDS AND SET-ASIDE FUNDS (FY87-FY90) (1987 DOLLARS) 300 -f 250 200 150 100- 30 Reservation Authorized Needs Set-Aside Funds • •Appropriation levels may be lower than authorization levels, based on historical funding trends of the Construction Grants Program. have been authorized through FY 1990, but must be appropriated each year. These grants are awarded at 55% to 75% of eligible costs, with the remaining funds coming from a local match or other sources. Loans and other non-grant financial assistance will also be available through the new State revolving loan fund program created by the 1987 amendments to the CWA. Since 1972, 29 grants totaling $25 million have been made directly to 12 Indian Tribes, as shown in Exhibit 9. This figure does not include grants made to municipalities for systems that serve substantial Indian populations, such as those in Oklahoma. Seven more Indian projects are anticipated by States to receive a combined total of $7 million in EPA funding, if available, in fiscal years 1988 and 1989. These seven projects are for Tribes in five different States. Relatively few Tribes have succeeded in obtaining grants through the State priority system in the past for several reasons. Title II requirements under the CWA have posed problems for some Indian Tribes, as discussed in Part 2 of this report. Other Tribes have not been able to provide the required matching funds, or have had difficulty getting a sufficiently high ranking on State priority lists to obtain funding in the past because of the focus on larger metropolitan areas. Based on this information and the pending phase-out of the Construc- tion Grants Program, it does not appear that funding from State con- struction grant allotments or State revolving loan fund programs will play a major role in satisfying Indian wastewater treatment needs. 18 ------- EXHIBIT 9: EPA COMSTRUCTION GRANTS MADE DIRECTLY TO INDIAN TRIBES* (Dollars in Millions) IHS Area Grants to Date Projected Funding for State (FY 1972-87) Priority List Projects (FY 1988-89) Aberdeen Alaska Albuquerque Bemidj i Billings California East Coast (Nashville) Oklahoma Navajo Phoenix Portland Tucson Total $1 - - - - - 4 - 4 8 8 < 1 $25 < $1 - 6 - < 1 - 1 — - — — — $7 * Does not include grants made to municipalities that serve Indian populations, such as Tribes in Oklahoma. OTHER SOURCES OF FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE EPA is not the only source of financial assistance for wastewater treatment facilities for Indian Tribes. Other agencies that provide financial assistance to Tribes for the planning and construction of treatment facilities are the Indian Health Service, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and, to a more limited extent, the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA). As shown in Exhibit 10, IHS and HUD are the primary sources of financial assistance for Tribes, although all three agencies' funds are subject to Congressional appropriations each year. The FY 1987 funding levels presented in Exhibit 10 are best estimates from agency staff. Typically, funds specifically for Indian wastewater treatment projects are not reported separately from other types of projects. Program assistance and eligibilities vary considerably among the three agencies, as illustrated in Appendix B. Some programs provide services and financial and technical assistance to Tribes that are not eligible for EPA funds under the set-aside program, and may cover costs for certain items that are also not eligible under the EPA Construction Grants Program. While it is beyond the scope of this report to provide a detailed discussion of the eligibilities of these other Federal programs, some general background is presented for 19 ------- EXHIBIT 10: ESTIMATE OF OTHER FEDERAL AGENCY FUNDS FOR INDIAN WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROJECTS Agency FY 1987 Funding* (Dollars in Millions) IHS $12** HUD 18 FmHA < 1 * Eligibilities for these funds differ from the eligibility for EPA set-aside funds. ** Includes $3 million from non-Federal sources. information purposes. Details on these programs are available from the individual agencies. IHS provides financial assistance to Indians through cooperative agreements and technical assistance to plan, construct, improve, and extend wastewater facilities. IHS assistance includes additional funds received from various non-Federal sources that vary annually. HUD provides assistance to Indian Tribes and Indian housing authorities. This assistance is provided to develop Indian communities, provide safe and sanitary dwellings for low-income families, and improve the physical condition and upgrade the operations of existing HUD-assisted Indian housing. These programs administered by IHS and HUD are designed specifically to assist Indians. FmHA programs, however, provide direct loans and project grants to rural communities and families, which may include Indians. The objectives of FmHA assistance are to assist low-income families in rural areas to obtain or repair decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings and to remove health hazards. Rural communities may receive assistance to alleviate health hazards through new and improved rural waste disposal facilities. It is important to note that much of IHS and HUD financial assistance for wastewater treatment is not provided to address the needs of existing homes. For sewage treatment, IHS financial assistance in recent years has primarily been to serve newly- constructed and rehabilitated homes provided by Federal agencies and Tribes. IHS serves "existing" homes (generally defined as more than 1.5 years old and not recently rehabilitated) when funds are either appropriated by Congress for IHS for that purpose, or contributed by Tribes, States, or local governments. In addition, HUD funds provided to IHS for sewage treatment may not be used for existing homes. On the other hand, HUD's Indian Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program can address wastewater treatment needs of existing homes. And, in very selected circumstances, HUD's Comprehensive Improvement Assistance program may also provide assistance for wastewater treatment in existing HUD-assisted Indian housing projects. 20 ------- PART 2: INDIAN SET-ASIDE WASTEWATER TREATMENT GRANT PROGRAM BACKGROUND This part of the report describes a program in response to the WQA that strengthens EPA's working relationship with Indian Tribes. The program goals are to increase Tribal capability to address water pollution control problems and to provide funding for wastewater management planning and construction of treatment facilities. The Indian Set-Aside Grants Program supports the objectives of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the President's American Indian Policy, and EPA's Indian Policy. ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK TO MANAGE THE INDIAN SET-ASIDE The WQA does not provide funds to EPA, IHS, or Indian Tribes to administer the set-aside program for construction grants; however, the law authorizes EPA to establish a program in cooperation with IHS. The administrative framework described below provides efficient use of existing trained EPA and IHS staff as well as the combined experience of both Agencies' wastewater treatment facility construction programs. In developing this framework, EPA sought input from Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations and was guided by a workgroup consisting of members of Indian Tribes, and representatives of IHS and EPA, as described on page 6. The workgroup considered the following basic options for program organization and procedures: 1. Transfer the set-aside over to IHS to administer completely under its existing program procedures with limited changes, as necessary, to reflect the water pollution control priority of the Title II Construction Grants Program. Wastewater treatment needs of Indian Tribes could be addressed more quickly and efficiently through the existing IHS program. However, a statutory requirement that EPA sign the grant awards and that projects funded from the set-aside meet Title II requirements eliminated this option. The Tribes also emphasized their desire to be able to work directly with EPA. 2. Operate the entire program through EPA using the existing construction grants regulations and procedures. Indian Tribes, IHS, and EPA technical staff have advised that some of the existing Construction Grant Program requirements may not be appropriate for Indian Tribes and grants from the set-aside. This advice, in addition to lack of staff resources in the EPA Regional offices, made this option infeasible. 3. Blend the most appropriate portions of both Agencies' programs to address Tribal needs. Although time consuming, this option provides the opportunity to develop a flexible and effective program to administer the set-aside. 21 ------- Option 3 was identified as the most desirable due to: (1) EPA's experience with a water quality oriented grant program, (2) the geographic distribution of IHS staff and their experience with Indian projects and Tribal capabilities, and (3) the benefits of spreading the resource impacts over two agencies. The balance of this section describes an "Option 3" program. Program Process EPA, in consultation with IHS, will develop program operating procedures. EPA will have the lead role in developing project selection criteria, and will use the experience of the IHS program and Tribal input to streamline project requirements. EPA will use the selection criteria in consultation with IHS to rank projects. EPA will then notify Tribes of their projects' priority status. Tribes with projects within the fundable range may prepare grant applications at this time. Upon the request of each Tribe, IHS will assist with the preparation of application materials and provide technical assistance subject to the availability of manpower. IHS will review project applications, provide evaluations to EPA for grant awards, and provide oversight during construction and the first year of operation of the facility. IHS will act in this capacity only at the request of the Tribal grant recipient. In areas where IHS is not available or not selected to work with the Indian Tribe, the EPA Regional office will fulfill these responsibilities. EPA retains the responsibility to assure that project certification and enforcement requirements are met, and to close out grants. One year after the initial grants are awarded under this arrangement, EPA, in consultation with IHS and Indian Tribes, will evaluate the process for administering this set-aside program and make necessary adjustments in the program operating procedures. Grant Eligibility Federally-recognized Tribes exercising governmental authority over a Federal Indian reservation, Tribes on former reservations in Oklahoma, and Alaska Native Villages will be eligible to apply for grants for construction of wastewater treatment facilities. A Tribe does not need to assume delegation of the Construction Grants Program or meet the criteria for treatment as a State to receive a project grant from this set-aside. Eligible Costs Indian Tribes need to consider that not all the costs of the treatment facility will be covered under this program, such as in-house plumbing and house connections to a collector sewer. Costs eligible under the set-aside include the same costs presently eligible under the current Title II Construction Grants Program. Under certain circumstances, costs associated with collectors, major sewer system rehabilitation, and correction of combined sewer overflow may also be 22 ------- eligible. Eligible costs can be funded up to 100%. Where cost effective and incidental to Tribal needs, a grant can cover non-Indian needs. Project Requirements Some Tribes as grant recipients may have difficulty meeting certain Title II project technical and administrative requirements. These duties include evaluating the costs and effectiveness of alternative wastewater treatment facilities. Project requirements also include the development of administrative and financial systems to ensure the operation and maintenance of the facilities such as a user charge system. The Federal project reviewer will assure that these requirements have been satisfied. EPA plans to draft project requirements to address Title II statutory requirements in as flexible a manner as possible. National Indian Project Priority System After consideration of several options for setting priorities among Indian projects, EPA, in cooperation with IHS and the workgroup, is currently proposing a national Indian project priority system. The project selection criteria for ranking these projects will be based primarily on environmental and public health needs. After the selection criteria are adopted, Indian Tribes will be informed of the process and timing of applications and the criteria upon which their application would be ranked. A national Indian project priority list will help ensure that each Tribe has an opportunity to apply for funding. Upon request, IHS will assist Tribes in applying for priority ranking, subject to the availability of manpower. After the requests for priority ranking have been reviewed, EPA, with assistance from IHS, will rank the projects and notify Tribal applicants of their priority status. Tribes with projects within the fundable range may prepare applications at that time. The Indian project priority list will be updated annually. Timeframe for Grant Process The set-aside funds appropriated by Congress will remain available until expended, including FY 1987 and FY 1988 appropriations. However, the Agency would like to fund wastewater treatment construction as soon as possible. EPA distributed a draft guidance document for Tribal comment in September 1988. This document described in detail the Indian set-aside grant process, the project priority system, and the project requirements. A final guidance document will initiate the Indian Set-Aside Program in early 1989. 23 ------- PART 3: PARTICIPATION BY INDIAN TRIBES IN CWA PROGRAMS BACKGROUND The Water Quality Act of 1987 provides that Tribes exercising governmental authority over a Federal Indian reservation may be treated as States for purposes of Title II and Sections 104, 106, 303, 305, 308, 309, 314, 319, 401, 402, and 404 of the CWA. In Section 518(e), the CWA sets forth three eligibility criteria, common to all applicable CWA programs, that Tribes must meet in order to be treated as States: o "the Indian Tribe has a governing body carrying out substantial governmental duties and powers;" o "the functions to be exercised by the Indian Tribe pertain to the management and protection of water resources...within the borders of an Indian reservation;" and, o "the Indian Tribe is reasonably expected to be capable, in the Administrator's judgment, of carrying out the functions to be exercised in a manner consistent with the terms and purposes of this Act and of all applicable regulations." The purpose of this part of the report is to discuss the following: o EPA's progress in maximizing Indian Tribe participation in and administration of these CWA programs. o The status of the regulations and strategies for the various CWA programs. o EPA's strategy for maintaining Indian participation in CWA programs. TRIBAL PARTICIPATION AND PROGRAM STATUS Shortly after passage of the WQA of 1987, EPA's Office of Water invited Indian Tribes to meetings held in all ten EPA Regions to discuss the new provisions of the Act. In order to promote Tribal participation, a June 10, 1987 letter was sent out from the Assistant Administrator for Water to Tribal Chairmen inviting tribes to nominate a contact person to represent the Tribe in the regulation development process. Over 40 Tribes have designated a contact person. These contacts are being used for various CWA regulation development activities. EPA established an Office of Water workgroup to promote consis- tency between Safe Drinking Water Act and CWA Indian programs and regulations. Three subworkgroups with Indian members were established to develop regulations and implement other Indian provisions of the 25 ------- CWA. These include: a workgroup to address the wastewater treatment set-aside grants and needs assessment, as previously discussed; a workgroup to promulgate a rule that will modify existing enforcement, permitting, water quality standards, and the wetlands dredge and fill programs, and to establish a conflict resolution mechanism for water quality standards; and a workgroup to develop regulations to extend water quality management, clean lakes, and nonpoint source/groundwater grants to Tribes. After the initial Regional meetings, several subsequent meetings have been held and presentations made to Indian organizations to discuss regulation development approaches and to gain Tribal input. EPA also held consultation meetings with Indian Tribes and States in Denver in June 1988 to obtain input on CWA program development activities relating to Indian Tribes. The participation of Indian Tribes in developing the regulations and strategies for Clean Water Act programs and the status of these programs is as follows: 1. Title II Construction Grants Program Delegation for Qualified Tribes—As required in the WQA, the Agency will promulgate regulations to specify how Indian Tribes that have necessary capability and authority to carry out the functions of the CWA will be treated as States. For delegation of the Construction Grants Program, Tribes must meet the same eligibility criteria described above for all CWA programs, including the same technical requirements that States must meet. The regulation that governs delegation of the Construction Grants Program to States (40 CFR Part 35, Subpart J) will be amended to include Tribes as potentially eligible for delegation. These amendments will be available for comment by the general public including Tribes during the regulation development process in 1988. Funding is not available to pay for administrative costs in managing a delegated program. Tribes may apply for construction grants from the Indian set-aside without assuming delegation of this program. The Indian Set-Aside Grant Program is discussed in Part 2 of this report. 2. Operator Training/Technical Assistance—To ensure that Indian Tribes can effectively manage their wastewater treatment facility infrastructure, EPA needs to provide support for needed training and technical assistance (Section 104). This assistance is currently being provided primarily by the Indian Health Service and, to a limited extent, by selected States. EPA has begun working more closely with IHS and appropriate States to share knowledge on available training programs and materials, and on effective operation and maintenance practices. EPA has also been working to provide increased coordination among Tribes, States, and EPA Regional offices. EPA also intends to encourage increased training of the most experienced Indian operators to serve in a peer matching technical assistance capacity and to train other Indian operators as trainers, thereby expanding available training capabilities. 26 ------- 3. Water Quality Standards, including the required conflict resolution mechanism (Sections 303 and 305), and Section 402 and 404 Permit Programs (including related Sections 308, 309, and 401)—The workgroup addressing these issues has both Tribal members and State representatives. The intent of the workgroup is to assist EPA in developing a mechanism to resolve any unreasonable consequences that may arise from Tribes and States adopting differing water quality standards on common water bodies; to identify any new areas where new or revised water quality standards program guidance may be needed; and to comment on National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and wetland permit issues that arise as these regulations are developed. The workgroup is focusing on developing regulations that amend the existing language where it is deemed appropriate for Tribes. Based on workgroup consensus, the draft issue resolution mechanism initially proposed by EPA was revised. The proposed resolution process was modeled closely on the informal procedures used for many years between States. EPA sent a revised draft to the workgroup, and distributed the draft regulations to all Tribes and States in January for review and comment. Based on these comments and the Denver consultation meetings with Tribes and States, EPA is now considering a more formalized and struc- tured process for conflict resolution. The conflict resolution process as currently proposed includes a series of steps, starting with mediation and ending with voluntary submission to binding arbitration for resolution of unreasonable consequences. 4. Indian CWA Program Grants—The intent of the CWA program grants workgroup is to develop regulations that establish funding levels and/or grant allocation mechanisms for a number of grants: Section 106 and 205(j)(2) Water Quality Management Grants; Section 205(j)(5) Nonpoint Source Management Grants; Section 314 Clean Lakes Management Grants; and Section 319 Nonpoint Source/ Groundwater Implementation and Development Grants. However, funds were not appropriated by Congress in FY 1988 for Section 314 grants, and none were appropriated in FYs 1988 and 1989 for Section 319 grants. A draft concept paper on these grants was discussed at a meeting of the Indian water quality management grants workgroup. The major issue raised at the meeting concerned the criteria to be used for the allocation of funds to the Regions, and the distribution of funds from the Regions to the Tribes. The proposed resolution of that issue is to establish a floor of funding that each Region with Tribes within its jurisdiction will receive. Additional funding above the floor will be available based on several criteria. The proposal provides significant flexibility to the Regions in deciding which applicants are most appropriate for funding. EPA distributed the draft to all Tribes and States for review and comment in January 1988. 27 ------- CONTINUING PARTICIPATION In order to encourage continuing Indian participation in CWA programs, EPA will: o Provide EPA's Regional Indian Coordinators and other Agency personnel with information that will increase Tribal knowledge of EPA's Indian programs and assist Tribes in responding to issues or activities. o Attend meetings, when possible, of Indian Tribes and organiza- tions to expand the Agency's understanding of priorities, concerns, and specific needs of Indian Tribes. o Reduce the administrative requirements, where possible, for Tribal governments that wish to apply for, or administer CWA programs. o Coordinate with other Federal agencies, States, other EPA programs, and Tribes to encourage technical assistance and communication efforts. o Provide information to Tribes on available technical materials, workshops, and training programs. o Include Tribes in the development and review of policies and regulations pertaining to Indian Tribes. Many of the EPA efforts listed above will be carried out by EPA Regional offices because that is where the operating programs are located. However, EPA Headquarters personnel will coordinate with Tribes directly in the development of regulations and other areas with national impacts. 28 ------- APPENDIX A: LIST OF SITE VISITS ------- LIST OF SITE VISITS TRIBE LOCATION DATE Barona Group of Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians of the Barona Reservation CA Bad River Band of the Lake Superior WI Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma OK OK Colorado River Indian Tribe of the AZ Colorado River Indian Reservation Creek Nation of Oklahoma OK Fond du Lac Band of Minnesota MN Chippewa Tribe Gila River Pima Maricopa Indian AZ Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation Hoh Indian Tribe of the Hoh Indian WA Reservation Iowa Tribe KS Kashia Band of Porno Indians of the CA Stewarts Point Rancheria Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the KS Kickapoo Reservation La Jolla Band of Luiseno Mission CA Indians of the La Jolla Reservation Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reserva- WA tion Makah Indian Tribe of the Makah WA Indian Reservation Manchester Band of Porno Indians of CA the Manchester-Point Arena Rancheria Miccosukee Tribe of Indians FL Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission CA Indians of the Morongo Indian Reservation A-l Aug. 1987 Sept. 1987 Sept. 1987 Sept. 1987 Aug. 1987 Sept. 1987 Sept. 1987 Nov. 1987 Aug. 1987 Aug. 1987 Aug. 1987 Aug. 1987 Aug. 1987 Aug. 1987 Aug. 1987 Aug. 1987 Aug. 1987 Aug. 1987 ------- LIST OF SITE VISITS (CONTINUED) TRIBE LOCATION DATE Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation Pala Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pala Reservation Port Gamble Indian Community of the Port Gamble Reservation Pueblo of Isleta Pueblo of Laguna Pueblo of Santa Ana Quileute Tribe of the Quileute SD CA WA NM NM NM WA Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. 1987 1987 1987 1987 1987 1987 1987 Reservation Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior WI Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin, Red Cliff Reservation Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission CA Indians of the Rincon Reservation Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud SD Indian Reservation St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians NY Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe WA Seminole Tribe of Florida, Dania, FL Big Cypress, and Brighton Reservations Seneca Nation NY Stillaguamish Tribe WA Swinomish Indians of the WA Swinomish Reservation Sycuan Band of Diegueno Mission CA Indians of the Sycuan Reservation White Mountain Apache Tribe of the AZ Fort Apache Indian Reservation Sept. 1987 Aug. 1987 Aug. 1987 Sept. 1987 Aug. 1987 Aug. 1987 Sept. 1987 Aug. 1987 Aug. 1987 Aug. 1987 Aug. 1987 A-2 ------- APPENDIX B: OTHER SOURCES OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR INDIAN WASTEWATER TREATMENT ------- OTHER SOURCES OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR INDIAN WASTEWATER TREATMENT 1 AGENCY 1 PROGRAM TYPE OF ASSISTANCE THS 1 Sanitation Facilities | Appropriations by 1 contract, direct payment for specified uses, and other Htm Indian Community I Project grants 1 Development Block Grants 1 ! 1 Indian Housing - Development 1 1 1 1 1 1 Indian Housing - 1 Comprehensive I Improvement Assistance 1 Program 1 Project grants Project grants USDA/ IWater and Waste Disposal | Project grants and FmHA 1 Systems for Rural 1 Communities * 1 1 Rural Housing - Home I Ownership Loans For Verv Low and Low 1 Income Families * 1 Very Low-Income Home- Owner Repair Loans and Grants * 1 direct loans Direct Loans Direct loans and Grants OBJECTIVE To construct, improve, and extend wastewater facilities to new Indian homes, and existing Indian homes when funds are available To assist in developing Indian Communities To provide safe and sanitary dwellings for low and lower income families, including sanitation facilities for these dwellings To improve the physical condition and upgrade the operation of cost effective existing HUD assisted Indian housing projects To alleviate health hazards and promote the orderly growth of rural areas by meeting the need for new and improved rural waste disposal facilities To assist lower-income rural families to obtain decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings and related facilities To assist very low-income owner- occupants In rural areas to repair or improve their dwellings in order to make them safe, sanitary, and to remove health hazards INDIAN ELIGIBILITY Federally-recognized Indians in IBS health service delivery areas Any Indian Tribe, group, or nation, and Alaska Natives federally recognized or eligible under State/Local Fiscal Assistance Act 1972 Indian housing authorities formed pursuant to State law or through tribal resolution Indian housing authorities formed pursuant to State law or through tribal resolution Indian Tribes on federal and state reservations and other federally- recognized Tribes of rural areas Indians that are US citizens living in rural areas and have low or very low income «• * Program not tailored specifically for Indians B-l ------- APPENDIX C: LIST OF ACRONYMS ------- ACRONYMS BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs CDBG Community Development Block Grant CWA Clean Water Act EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FmHA Farmers Home Administration FY Fiscal Year HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development IHS Indian Health Service P.L. Public Law SFDS Sanitation Facility Data System WQA Water Quality Act C-l ------- INDIAN PROVISIONS OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT SEC. SIS. INDIAN TRIBES. (a) POLICY.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the application of section 101(g) of this Act, and all of the provi- sions of this section shall be carried out in accordance with the pro- visions of such section 101(g). Indian tribes shall be treated as States for purposes of such section 101(g). (b) ASSESSMENT OF SEWAGE TREATMENT NEEDS; REPORT.—The Administrator, in cooperation with the Director of the Indian Health Service, shall assess the need for sewage treatment works to serve Indian tribes, the degree to which such needs will be met through funds allotted to States under section 205 of this Act and priority lists under section 216 of this Act, and any obstacles which prevent such needs from being met. Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this section, the Administrator shall submit a report to Congress on the assessment under this subsection, along with recommendations specifying (1) how the Administrator intends to provide assistance to Indian tribes to develop waste treat- ment management plans and to construct treatment works under this Act, and (2) methods by which the participation in and admin- istration of programs under this Act by Indian tribes can be maxi- mized. (c) RESERVATION OF FUNDS.—The Administrator shall reserve each fiscal year beginning after September 30, 1986, before allot- ments to the States under section 205(e), one-half of one percent of the sums appropriated under section 207. Sums reserved under this subsection shall be available only for grants for the development of waste treatment management plans and for the construction of sewage treatment works to serve Indian tribes. (d) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.—In order to ensure the consistent implementation of the requirements of this Act, an Indian tribe and the State or States in which the lands of such tribe are located may enter into a cooperative agreement, subject to the review and approv- al of the Administrator, to jointly plan and administer the require- ments of this Act. (e) TREATMENT AS STATES.—The Administrator is authorized to treat an Indian tribe as a State for purposes of title II and sections 104, 106, 303, 305, 308, 309, 314, 319, 401, 402, and 404 of this Act to the degree necessary to carry out the objectives of this section, but only if— (1) the Indian tribe has a governing body carrying out sub- stantial governmental duties and powers; (2) the functions to be exercised 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 in trust for Indians, held by a member of an Indian tribe if such property interest is subject to a trust restriction on alienation, or other- wise within the borders of an Indian reservation; and (3) the Indian tribe is reasonably-expected to be capable, in the Administrator's judgment, of carrying out the functions to be exercised in a manner consistent with the terms and pur- poses of this Act and of all applicable regulations. Such treatment as a State may include the direct provision of funds reserved under subsection (c} to the governing bodies of Indian tribes, and the determination of priorities by Indian tribes, where not determined by the Administrator in cooperation with the Direc- tor of the Indian Health Service. The Administrator, in cooperation with the Director of the Indian Health Service, is authorized to make grants under title II of this Act in an amount not to exceed 100 percent of the cost of a project. Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this section, the Administrator shall, in consultation with Indian tribes, promulgate final regulations which specify how Indian tribes shall be treated as States for pur- poses of this Act. The Administrator shall, in promulgating such regulations, consult affected States sharing common water bodies and provide a mechanism for the resolution of any unreasonable consequences that may arise as 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 consideration 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 and historical uses and quality of the waters subject to such standards. Such mechanism should provide for the avoidance of such unrea- sonable consequences in a manner consistent with the objective of this Act. (f) GRANTS FOR NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAMS.—The Administra- tor shall make grants to an Indian tribe under section 319 of this Act as though such tribe was a State. 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 under this subsection. In addition to the requirements of section 319, an Indian tribe shall be required to meet the requirements of paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (d) of this section in order to receive such a grant. (g) ALASKA NATIVE ORGANIZATIONS.—No provision of this Act shall be construed to— (1) grant, enlarge, or diminish, or in any way affect the scope of the governmental authority, if any, of any Alaska Native or- ganization, including any federally-recognized tribe, traditional Alaska Native council, or Native council organized pursuant to the Act of June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 987), over lands or persons in Alaska; (2) create or validate any assertion by such organization or any form of governmental authority over lands or persons in Alaska; or (3) in any way affect any assertion that Indian country, as de- fined in section 1151 of title 18, United States Code, exists or does not exist in Alaska. (h) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section, the term— (1) "Federal Indian reservation" means all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and including rights-of-way running through the reser- vation; and (i) "Indian tribe" means any Indian tribe, band, group, or community recognized by the Secretary of the Interior and exer- cising governmental authority over a Federal Indian reserva- tion. ------- ------- |