EPA 430/09-88-
January 1989
Report to Cong
Indian Wastewater Treatment
Needs and Assistance
-------
Cover illustration prepared by Alphena Armao of the Navajo Tribe,
Winslow, Arizona.
-------
\
j UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
PuOTECT'C.
JAN 11 1989 AC:. ,-:v
THE ADMINISTRATOŁ"JI!---/V->' "-f%-
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 recommendations at your convenience.
Sincerely
Lee M. Thomas
Enclosure
-------
?• mm \
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
JAN I 9 1989
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 HASTEHATER 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
responsibilities.
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 wastewater 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.
-------
EXHIBIT 1
TREATMENT, COLLECTION, AND HOUSE
CONNECTION INDIAN NEEDS
Collection
35%
House Connection
10%
Treatment
55%
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
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 prelects 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
Total
$10
69
18
9
3
5
29
61
33
16
13
4
$270
34
43
51
7
35
6
20
103
47
27
21
8
402
80
110
40
40
20
60
20
720
250
80
30
60
1,510
EXHIBIT 5
DISTRIBUTION OF CURRENT INDIAN NEEDS
BY IHS AREAS
(1987 Dollars in Millions)
Portland
13
Aberdeen
10
Bemidji
9
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 IMS AREAS
(Population in Thousands)
Billings
35
Aberdeen
34
Portland
21
California
6
Phoenix
27
Tucson
8
Navajo
Alaska 47
43
Albuquerque
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
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
D
o
I
I
a
r
s
i
n
M
i
I
I
i
o
n
s
COMPARISON OF INDIAN NEEDS AND
SET-ASIDE FUNDS (FY87-FY90)
(1987 DOLLARS)
300
250-
200
150
100
Reservation
Needs
Authorized
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 CONSTRUCTION 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
-------
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.
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
Barona Group of Capitan Grande
Band of Mission Indians of the
Barona Reservation
Bad River Band of the Lake Superior
Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the
Bad River Reservation
Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma
Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma
Colorado River Indian Tribe of the
Colorado River Indian Reservation
Creek Nation of Oklahoma
Fond du Lac Band of Minnesota
Chippewa Tribe
Gila River Pima Maricopa Indian
Indian Community of the Gila
River Indian Reservation
Hoh Indian Tribe of the Hoh Indian
Reservation
Iowa Tribe
Kashia Band of Porno Indians of the
LOCATION
CA
WI
OK
OK
AZ
OK
MN
AZ
WA
KS
CA
DATE
Aug.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Aug.
Sept.
Sept.
Nov.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
Stewarts Point Rancheria
Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the
Kickapoo Reservation
La Jolla Band of Luiseno Mission
Indians of the La Jolla
Reservation
Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reserva-
tion
Makah Indian Tribe of the Makah
Indian Reservation
Manchester Band of Porno Indians of
the Manchester-Point Arena
Rancheria
Miccosukee Tribe of Indians
Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission
Indians of the Morongo Indian
Reservation
KS
CA
KS
CA
WA
WA
CA
FL
CA
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
A-l
-------
LIST OF SITE VISITS (CONTINUED)
TRIBE
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
LOCATION
SD
CA
WA
NM
NM
NM
WA
DATE
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
AGENCY
PROGRAM
TYPE OF
ASSISTANCE
OBJECTIVE
INDIAN
ELIGIBILITY
IHS
Sanitation Facilities
Appropriations by
contract, direct
payment for
specified uses, and
other
To construct, improve, and extend
wastewater facilities to new Indian
homes, and existing Indian homes
when funds are available
Federally-recognized
Indians in IHS
health service
delivery areas
Indian Community (Project grants
Development Block Grants)
To assist in developing Indian
Communities
Indian Housing —
Development
Indian Housing -
Comprehensive
Improvement Assistance
Program
Project grants
Project grants
I
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
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
usnA/
FmHA I Systems for Rural
I Communities *
I Water and Waste Disposal|Project grants and
direct loans
I
IPural Housing — Home
I Ownership Loans For
Verv Low and Low
Income Families *
Very Low—Income Home—
Owner Repair Loans and
Grants *
Direct Loans
Direct loans and
Grants
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 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
------- |