C*\\<
4
REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES AND PROGRAMS IMPLEMENTED- UNDER
SECTION 319 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT AS AMENDED BY THE
WATER QUALITY ACT OF 1987
FISCAL YEAR 1987 .
I. Introduction
This report has been prepared pursuant to subsection 319(mj(l)
of the Clean Water Act, as amended by section 316 of the Water
Quality Act of 1987 (WQA). This subsection requires that the
Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) "transmit to the Committee on Public Works:and
Transportation of the House of Representatives and the Committee
on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, a report for the
preceding fiscal year on the activities and programs implemented
under this section and the progress made in reducing pollution in
the navigable waters resulting from nonpoint sources and
improving the quality of such waters."
Because of the timing of passage of the WQA (February 4,
1987), slightly more than half of FY 1987 remained for EPA and
'the States to begin addressing the provisions of Section 319, As
a result, the activities of EPA and the States during this period
concentrated primarily upon clarifying the specific requirements
of Section 319, laying the groundwork for orderly and timely
development and submission by the States of approvable nonpoint
source (NPS) Assessment Reports and Management Programs, and
conducting a variety of outreach activities to ensure informed,
effective participation by all interested and affected parties.
Special attention is being paid to the development of assessment
and reporting procedures and formats to enhance their utility and
effectiveness for documenting water quality improvements
resulting from State efforts under Section 319. In this way,
future annual reports will be able to address the progress being
made in reducing pollution in the navigable waters resulting from
nonpoint sources. .
II.. Extent of Nonpoint Source Water Quality Problems .
The recehtl-yi'published section 305(b) report, titled "National
.;_ Water Quality Inventory. 1986 Report to"~ Congress", provides
r^hToTMnati,cm from; the States on water quality" conditions in about
V one-fifth-o'fi'^.-'S-fe^ stream mileCj.T/one-third _.pf' lake>-acres- and•
\ . one-half'.rbf'-. estualriTne-waters, This report says' th'at 74' pe^ent -
v—of assessed,river miles, 73. p^rc'stvt of assessed lake acres and^S^.
percent of assessed estuarin© and coastal-waters «re^clean enough
to support the uses States have set for them""^under '*he Clean
Water Act. ' ' -. . ' • ' ~ '~"~^S;r^,
U.S. Environmental Protoctlon Agency
Library, Roonj 3404 FH--21I-A
401 M Streot, S.iV.
Washington, DC 20460
-------
-2-
Of the" "roughly 25 percent of waters assessed in this report
that do not meet State use designations, nonpoint sources of
pollution are cited as the cause of water-quality degradation in
75 percent of the lake acres, 65 percent of stream miles and. 45
percent of estuarine waters. By contrast, of the roughly 25
percent of waters assessed for this report that do not meet State
use designations, point sources of pollution such
sewage-treatment facilities and factories are said to be
cause of degradation in 9 percent of assessed lake acrest 27
percent of assessed stream miles and 34 percent of assessed
estuarine waters. The remaining waters with impairments are
affected by: such natural conditions as low. flow, miscellaneous
sources including sediment contamination and acid rain or
undetermined sources.
„-'"*'
"Nonpoint sources appear to be increasingly important
contributors to use impairment," the report concludes.
"Intensified data collection efforts are certainly a factor in
explaining their dominance. Another explanation may be that
nonpoint source impacts are becoming more evident as point
sources come increasingly under control." (National Water
Quality Inventory; 1986 Report To Congress. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, EFA-440/4-87-008, November 1987)
III. Program Development -
.To date, EPA's attention to implementation of Section 319 has
focused on integrating the many new requirements of the WQA withj
ongoing core CWA programs through a State Clean Water Strategy
approach. We have translated the legislative mandate of Section
319 into specific guidance on which the States can act and have
begun developing understanding and support among the broad array
of interests who, with the States, will determine the1 success of
Section 319 implementation. The States have been equally busy
compiling, re-evaluating and amplifying existing data and
information on NFS water quality impacts and enlarging the circle
of agencies, groups and citizens who will actively participate in
the development of State NFS assessments- and management programs.
Specifically, these activities include the following:
•- A. State Clean Water Strategies
Immediately following its passage, EPA recognized that
the WQA offered a special opportunity to implement
important new water quality initiatives in concert with
ongoing core CWA programs and intensifying efforts to
protect two other water resources, wetlands and ground'
water. Specifically, States were asked to address
important new responsibilities in the areas of surface
water toxics, NFS pollution, clean lakes and estuaries.
Therefore, in consultation with the" States and other
interested parties, EPA developed guidance on, and is
-------
-3-
encouraging the States to adopt, a State Clean Water-
Strategy (SCWS) process to guide State implementation .of
the WQA, including -Section 319. The SCWS process
involves three steps; completing an integrated,
comprehensive assessment of impaired waters;, targeting'or
identifying the sequence for protecting water resources;
and converting ideas and actions into a strategic
management plan(s). An important element of the process
is establishing early, effective involvement of public
interest groups, elected officials, the media and others
who may be interested and able to assist in the process.
Opening the process can lead to new data, information and
ideas, and can also generate a broad-based coalition of
support for implementation activities. Further detail on
State Clean Water Strategies is provided in Appendix A.
Guidance for the implementation of Section 319 has
specifically been developed to fit within and support the
SCWS process. •
B. Section 319 Guidance
Detailed guidance for use by the States in implementing
Section 319 was developed and issued by EPA through an
open, inclusive process which provided opportunity for
review and comment by all- interested parties. A NFS
Workgroup composed of representatives of affected EPA
programs, other Federal agencies, States, public interest
and environmental groups, and affected industries met in
May and June to review initial drafts of the ^guidance. A
final draft was published in the Federal* Register on
September 4, 1987, and further revised on the basis of
more than thirty comments received from a broad range of
interested parties. The Final Guidance was issued by
EPA's .Assistant Administrator for Water in December of
1987.
The Final Guidance ^describes in detail what must be
included in a State NFS Assessment Report and Management
Program for them to be approvable by EPA. It describes
the process for review and approval of the -Reports and
Programs by EPA and the process to be followed by EPA
should a State fail to submit an Assessment Report by the
statutory deadline. The Guidance describes the several
sources of Federal funding authorized to assist the
States in implementing approved State _NPS Management
Programs and the requirements and procedures for award of
such funds, if appropriated. Finally, it describes and
enumerates the requirements for ' other elements of the
Section 319 program such as annual State reports to EPA,
the annual and final reports to Congress on progress
under Section 319 and identification by the States of
Federal programs and projects to be r.eyiewed for
-------
-4-
consistency with State NFS Management Programs. A copy
of the final NFS-Guidance can be found in Appendix B.
C. Regional Meetings and Workshops
The EPA Regions have been-very active in arranging and
assisting with workshops and formal meetings to educate
the States, key organizations and associations, .and
individuals about the requirements of Section 319.
Rather than sitting back to await the development of
final national guidance, EPA Regional Offices, often in
association with organizations or associations long
involved in NPS management matters, have taken steps to
prepare the States for the task of developing sound NPS
Assessment Reports and Management Programs. They have
brought together officiais and staff of a variety of
State and Federal agencies, representatives of important
interest groups and concerned local leaders to clarify
the central objectives of Section 319 and provide'
opportunities for all participants to share their
insights and experiences on everything from data
gathering and analysis to creative incentives for getting
landowners and managers to adopt and maintain needed best
management practices (BMPs). These occasions have also
been used as an opportunity to obtain valuable feedback
on the draft national guidance so as to ensure broad
participation in the development process by. those who
ultimately will be most affected by the guidance.
Meetings of this nature have included: a workshop for
State water quality managers in the Northeast (EPA
Regions I and II) held in conjunction with the New
England Regional Convention of the National Association
of Conservation Districts (NACD) on August 12, 1987; a
meeting for State water quality and related natural
resource agency managers held by EPA Region III in
Philadelphia on August 21, 1987; a workshop for State
water quality managers and conservation leaders in EPA
Region IV sponsored by NACD and held in . Atlanta on
November 10, 1987; a workshop for State water quality
managers and representatives of other affected Federal
and State agencies held by Region V in Chicago on October
6-7, 1987; a workshop for State water quality managers
and conservation leaders in EPA Region VI sponsored by
NACD and held in Dallas December 8, 1987; a workshop for
State water quality managers and conservation leaders in
EPA Regions VII and VIII sponsored by NACD and held in
Denver on December .3-4, 1987; and a workshop for all
State water quality managers and conservation leaders in
EPA- Regions IX and X sponsored by the Pacific Region of
NACD and held in San Francisco on December 10-11, 1987%
D. General Outreach
-------
-5-
In addition to workshops and meetings with Federal, State
and local agency managers responsible for implementing
the formal programs generated by Section 319,. EPA and the
States have been conducting outreach activities of a
. broader nature . as well. These activities have been
directed toward educating affected organizations,
professional societies, public interest groups and the
general public about the provisions of Section 319 and
enlisting their participation in and support -for
intensified efforts to assess and control NFS pollution.-
The variety and number of sources which generate NFS
pollution, the range of water resources (rivers, lakes,
estuaries, ground . water, wetlands) impacted by NFS
pollution and the diversity of persons and interests
which must be involved in resolving NFS water quality
problems require that a- concentrated effort be made to
communicate clearly and widely the goals and objectives
of the Section 319 program and the opportunities for
those affected to participate in shaping it.
.EFA Headquarters efforts have largely taken the form of
participation in, and presentations to, meetings and
conferences of professional socie.ties, governmental
associations, and public and private interest groups at
the national level. Examples include the annual
conventions of the Water Pollution Control Federation,
the Soil and Water Conservation Society of America, the
Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution
Control Administrators, the National Association of
Conservation Districts, the National Association of State
Foresters, and the American Society of Consulting
Engineers. EFA Regional Offices have made presentations
to a wide variety of similar groups at the regional
level. EFA estimates that more than 70 such meetings
have occurred at the regional level.
State water quality agencies have focused .their outreach
activities on other State agencies (e.g., fish and
wildlife, forestry, groundwater, wetlands protection, and
mining), public interest and citizen groups, and local
governments. Reports from the States indicate that as
many as 400 meetings of this nature have been held by the
States.
S. Federal/State/Local Nonpoint Source National Meeting
EPA convened a Federal/State/Local Nonpoint Source Task
Force in March 1984 to develop recommendations to the EPA
Administrator on a national NFS policy and
agency-specific strategies to implement the principles
contained in the recommended national policy. The
-------
agencies represented on the Task Force were selected to
be representative of the diversity of Federal, State,
local and areawide agencies involved in NFS management.
The Task Force developed a recommended national policy
based on -extensive deliberations over the course of a
series of meetings -throughout the remainder of 1984' and
presented it to William Ruckleshaus, EPA Administrator at
the time, in January 1985. The participating agencies,
including EPA, .developed and adopted agency-specific
Implementation strategies and have used the strategies
to guide their NFS-related activities and programs since
then.
Because effective implementation of Section 319 will
require coordination- of many diverse agencies from all
levels of government similar to the mix represented on
the Task Force, EPA convened a national meeting of
representatives.from Federal, State and local'agencies
and various other organizations concerned with NFS
management on November 18, 1987, in Washington, D.C. EPA
distributed a final draft of the NFS Guidance reflecting
modifications which had been made in response to comments
received on the Draft Guidance published in the Federal
Register of September 4, 1987. Each agency gave a brief
presentation on the status of its efforts to accelerate
and expand NFS management activities. The State of
Maryland made a presentation on its • stormwater management
program which is among the first of such programs to
address stormwater management comprehensively on a
statewide basis. A major topic of. discussion was
implementation of the provisions of subsections
319(b)(2)(F) and 319(k) relating to the consistency of
Federal programs and development projects with State NFS
Management Programs.
IV. Grant Assistance
During FY 1987, several types of Federal grant assistance were
used to support State NFS program activity. Both the Section .106
and the Subsection 205(j)(l) grant programs pre-date enactment of
the WQA. Therefore FY 1987 grants under those programs were not
consciously awarded to support State actions required by Section
319. However, 106 and 205(j)(l) grants awarded to the States in
FY 1987 were used by the States to assist in identifying and
evaluating NFS water quality problems, planning appropriate
abatement actions and otherwise developing State NFS programs.
Most of these activities resulted in a strengthening of the
States' abilities to comply with Section 319 requirements in a
timely manner, in effect supporting State implementation of
Section 319 even though that was not the conscious intent.
Subsection 205(j)(5), added by the WQA, authorizes a reserve
for each State of one percent of the State's annual construction
-------
. -7-
grant allotment, or $100,000, whichever is greater, beginning in
FY 1987, for the purpose of "carrying out section 319..." EPA's
NPS Guidance provides for the use of such funds by the States to
develop their NFS Assessment Reports and Management Programs and
to implement their NPS Management Programs once the Programs have
been approved by "EPA. The .FY 1987 supplemental appropriations
bill signed by the President on July 11, 1987, contained
supplemental funding for construction of municipal wastewater
treatment facilities resulting in Subsection 205(j)(5) reserves
of $12.539 million. These reserves were distributed to the- EPA
Regions on August 13, 1987, and a delegation of grant-making
authority to the EPA Regional Administrators was signed by the
Administrator on September 17, 1987. Following review and
approval of applications containing detailed work programs, EPA
Regions have . proceeded to make grant " awards to the States.
Because no State yet has an approved NPS Assessment Report and
Management Program, all grant awards of Subsection 205(j)(5)
funds to date have been made to support development of NPS
Assessment Reports and/or Management Programs.
As of December 31, 1987, 31 States had been awarded Subsection
205{j)(5) grants for FY 1987. Applications from 16 States were
awaiting final approval. Eight States were still preparing
applications and 1 State had elected not to use its Subsection
205(j)(5) reserve for Section 319 activity. A chart summarizing
the status of FY 1987 Subsection 205(j)(5) grant awards and a
listing of FY 1987 Subsection 205(j)(5) funding targets are
included as Appendix C.
Four other sources of funding for State NPS programs
.authorized by the Water Quality Act have not yet come into play.
Construction grant funds may be made available as NPS awards
under the Governor's Discretionary authority that is conveyed by
Subsection 20r(g)(1)(B). Similarly, loans .to support NPS
implementation may be provided from Federally capitalized State
Revolving Funds. Neither of these sources of funding were
actually awarded in FY 1987 because no State had an EPA-approved
NPS Management Program. Finally, funding for Section 319(h) and
(i) grants is not authorized until FY 1988; however, based on
Congressional action to date on FY 1988 appropriations',, it is npt
expected that funds will be made available in FY 1988. Grants
from each State's Section 604(b) reserve from its capitalization
grant allotment will not be available until the first such
allotment in FY 1989. .
V. Status of State NPS Activity
At present the States are actively working on completion of
their NPS Assessment Reports. SPA has encouraged the States to
carry but comprehensive assessments integrating, insofar as
possible, similar assessment requirements under several
provisions of the WQA [Section 314 (clean lakes), Section 319
-------
-a-
(nonpoint sources), Section 320 (estuaries) and Section 308
(surface water toxics)] and to report the results as part
their Section 305(b) Water Quality Inventory reports due April
1988. The advantages of combining these assessments are to:
States identify geographical problems and crossmedia "hot spots";
make data gaps more apparent; encourage non-traditional,
multi-agency coordination and cooperation; and lay the groundwork
for comprehensive pollution control efforts.
Given the time constraints imposed by the WQA statutory
deadlines, States will have to use existing and readily
obtainable data and -information to meet near-term WQA
requirements. However, States have been urged to expand their
horizons and to seek input from all informed parties. The goal
is to collect existing data on aquatic resources and -habitat
which go beyond the information currently on file with EPA and
the State water quality agencies.
A few States which have had substantial NFS programs for some
time are proceeding to modify them to make them comply with
Section 319 requirements and will likely submit them, along with
completed NFS Assessment Reports, ahead of the August 4, 1988,
statutory deadline. EPA is encouraging the States to design and
implement Management Programs as part of an overall State Clean
Water Strategy which unifies and integrates the State." s entire
approach -to water quality protection and cleanup. A matrix
summarizing EPA's current projections for submission of
Assessment Reports and Management Programs by the States
included as Appendix D.
VI. Program Management
EPA's national and regional program management efforts to date
have largely centered upon communicating the objectives and
requirements of Section 319 to the States and other affected
groups, working with all interested 'parties to establish clear,
workable ground rules and guidelines for necessary State actions
and encouraging timely award of FY 1987 Subsection 205{j)(5)
grants to assist States with development of their NP.S Assessment
Reports and Management Programs. Management activity will
increasingly turn toward ensuring nationally consistent
administration of the ground rules and guidance, providing needed
technical support to the States and assuring efficient, effective
use by the States of Federal assistance.
National consistency and high-quality performance within
established deadlines will be achieved by conducting on-site
program audits of all EPA. Regional NPS programs and selected
State NPS programs. Ample flexibility will be.__afforded the
States to tailor their programs to State-specific NPS water
quality problems, experience, resource levels and institutional
arrangements and to adopt innovative and creative approaches..
-------
-9-
However, care will be exercised to ensure that resources are
effectively used; that reasonable, realistic and aggressive
milestones are set and achieved by the States; and that real
water quality improvements result. Utilizing both in-house
technical expertise and the services of specialized contract
consultants obtained' with limited extramural funding, EPA
Headquarters and Regions will provide technical guidance,
training and on-site consultation to State agency personnel,
landowners and land managers to assist them with refining and
evaluating their assessments, targeting critical areas, designing
control plans and measurea,- and putting controls into operation.
VII. Technical Assistance
During FY 1987, EPA has provided several forms of technical
assistance to the States and other participants in the Section
319 process. EPA Headquarters collaborated with the Chesapeake
Bay Program in developing and publishing a study entitled
Chesapeake Bay Nonpoint Source Programs. Production of the
document provided an opportunity for the States in EFA's Region
III whose watersheds contribute NPS pollution to the Bay to
document, evaluate and learn from their past efforts to control
NFS pollution and to begin devising improvements .to those
programs. The study will be distributed nationally to assist
States and localities with similar NFS water quality problems to
develop effective solutions and learn from, the successes and
mistakes of the Chesapeake Bay States. EPA also issued a
technical publication entitled Setting Priorities; The Key to
NFS Control which provides guidance on how a State may target its
NFS activities to obtain visible water quality results in a
reasonably short time from available resources.
Two other technical guidance documents currently being
developed by EPA will also help States to meet the requirements
of Section 319. One of these is a NFS monitoring and evaluation
guide which explains the .special—monitoring techniques,
procedures and protocols needed to accurately and reliably
measure and document the water quality impacts of NFS pollution.
An initial draft- of this guide is near completion but will
require comment and review from EPA Regions, States, other
federal agencies, NFS experts in the private sector and other
programs within EPA. The final guide will be available in late
1988. The other technical guidance document is an annotated
reporting format for use by States in reporting NPS assessment
data for inclusion in EPA's Water Body System (WBS), the
computerized data system which will be used to store and track
all data for the biennial Section 305(b) Water Quality Inventory.
This format has been designed specifically to maximize its
utility for documenting water quality improvements resulting from
State efforts under Section 319 for inclusion in future versions
of this report. This guidance is currently .undergoing final
review and will be issued in January-of .1988. Both documents
-------
-10-
will be distributed to States through EPA Regional Offices and
will be available by request from EPA's Nonpoint Sources Branch
in the Office of Water.
Other major technical assistance . activities planned for FY
1988, depending upon the availability of resources, include:
providing direct assistance to the States in completing, refining
and/or upgrading Assessment Reports and Management Programs;
developing a methodology for incorporating nonpoint sources into
wasteload allocations; and continuing the development of
monitoring techniques (e.g. biological monitoring) which make
better use of constrained monitoring resources and better support
linkages with related water programs such ' as surface-water
toxics, bays/estuaries, ground water and wetlands.
VIII. Leading Issues
Translating the legislative provisions of Section 319 into
clear, systematic guidance which can be followed and complied
with by each of the 56 States and Territories has raised some
significant issues. Many of these have been resolved through
revisions ' of successive drafts of EPA's guidance document or
through mutual recognition by all parties that in certain
instances different States might, and should be allowed to,
respond to a given situation differently. Others continue to be
debated and will require further study and negotiation before
they can be fully resolved. Among the latter issues are the
following:
A. Use of State/Local Cost Sharing as Match - Many States
object to the requirement that State/local cost-share
funds may • be used as a match for Section 319 grants and
for Subsection 205(j)(S) implementation grants only to
the ^^gtxtent such cost-share funds are used for
(demonstration pro. J ec"€sT/ as provided . in Subsection
3l9(h)(7).These States object on the ground that such
a requirement removes s one of their largest and most
available sources of match funds. EPA's Office of
General Counsel advises that the requirement is
necessary because cost sharing, except for demonstration
projects, is an ineligible activity under Section 319.
Under Federal grant law and regulations. States may not
use expenditures for ineligible activities as part of
their match. The requirement applies to Subsection
205(j)(5) grants used for implementation because in that
circumstance they function as Section 319 grants. The
legislative history indicates that under such
circumstances they must meet the same match requirements
as Section 319 grants. It should be noted, however,
that this coat^share restriction does not apply to Title'
VI used for Section 319
purposes^ '• "
-------
-11-
B. Allocation of Section 319(h) Funds - Some comments on
the draft NFS Guidance took issue with EPAJ_s_plan tc
awajrdUSection 319funding according to
(formula^ ra€heY~~~:Ehan _~oh a competitive basis _ ,
cnfreivttaj's .Guidance" tentatively proposes awarding half
of the funds each way) on the ground that awarding the
funds wholly on a competitive basis would lead to better
results. Other States feel strongly that awarding the
funds wholly according to an equitable allocation
formula provides tjtee4ed~-certaiii£y^to ensure a long-term
program commitment oy~tite""~STS£e. EPA continues to feel
its balanced approach is.best.
C. Avai labi 1 i.ty for Obi i gat ion - A number of States object
• to the provision in Section 319 that funds awarded under
that section (which includes funds awarded for
implementation under Subsection 205(j)(5)) remain
available for obligation only for the year in which
appropriated. They argue that because final action on
appropriations typically does not occur until a
substantial part of the fiscal year has elapsed and
because the States must then await processing and award
of the funds by .EPA, this provision in practice forces
them to obligate the funds without adequate
consideration and planning or to lose the funds" due to
expiration of. the obligation period. However, as
explained in EPA's NFS Guidance, if a State fails to use
its funds in the year in which appropriated, the EPA
Regional Administrator has the discretion to negotiate
with the --State.a schedule for use of the funds rather
than deobligate.
D. - Additj,jmal_T-echni-Cal Guidance - The Western States point
— to the.need for-additional technical guidance in several
areas. State-of-the-art guidance on water
quality-oriented best management practices j(BMFs)^ is
urgently needed for some region-specific catego"rTWs-*and
subcategories of NFS activity, for example grazing and
hard-rock mining. There is also the need to develop
waterquality" criteria to - protect against pure
(non-toxic) sediment which impairs fish habitat, by
cobble embeddedness.
IX. Current Accomplishments
Because of the short period of time which has elapsed-since
passage of the Water Quality Act, it is too early to see specific
results directly attributable to the Act. NFS management
activity at the Federal, State and local levels, however, has
been gaining headway during the- past several years and in some
instances has resulted in significant achievements. In some
-------
-12-
cases, the increased activity appears to be the result of a
growing emphasis upon and funding of_ NFS pollution controls by
selected States on their own. In other cases, the growth inl
activity has been triggered by. anticipation of Section 319 and
recognition by many States that they needed to. strengthen their
programs in order' to be in a position to comply with new
legislative requirements. In any event, there have been a. number
of recent NPS management accomplishments worth noting.
At the State level, accomplishments ranged from passage of
key, ground-breaking., legislation to (1) adoption of new
techniques and methodologies to factor NFS impacts into State and
areawide planning and (2) on-the-ground^4mplementation of NPS
control systems. For example, ^jgtnmectrTcup adopted and began
implementing a revised basin plan for"the Farmington River which
includes strengthened requirements for abatement -of NFS
pollution. V*aine \developed a Lake Vulnerability Index to
identify the sensitivity of lakes to the impacts of development
activity and now routinely uses it (1) in State review of permits
for large-scale development projects, (2) in technical
assistance/training for local selectmen and planning boards and
(3) as a basis for an aggressive education program for Regional
Planning Commissions, lake associations, the public and the
media. Maine has also adopted legislation to provide grants and
technical assistance to localities to assist them in abating and
preventing poHi-u-tAon o£^_ground water by highway salt storage
facilities. JMasaaehuaet'taj NFS Advisory and Steering Committee
has moved legislation to establish and fund a statewide NPSJ
program, including bond-funded-ce-s-t—^sharing, close to enactment
by the State legislature. \Vermontf\ has adopted and begun
implementing control plans whrch contain stringent NFS control
measures for the Upper West and Deerfield River Basins.
Joint action and funding by EPA, the]
)epartment of
Environmental Protection, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the National. Oceanic and
.Atmospheric Administration have resulted in initiation of a model
program to restore and protect a major shellfish resource in the
Navesink Estuary. Multi-agency efforts to control animal wastes
in Puerto Rico's Rio Grande de Loiza Basin and Lake La Plata
Watershed have been launched to clean up and protect two of the
City of San Juan's primary water supplies. Numerous projects to
control and prevent NPS pollution have been undertaken by the
States and localities whose waters discharge to the Chesapeake
Bay and are documented in the recent study mentioned above,
Chesapeake Bay Nonpoint Source Programs.
Land and Water 201 is an interagency, cooperative effort to
solve land and water resource conservation problems in the 201
counties of the Tennessee Valley area, involving .the U.S. Soil
Conservation Service, EPA, the Tennessee Valley Authority and the
States of Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama,
-------
-13-
Mississippi and Kentucky. " The multiryear program includes
demonstration projects focusing on agricultural NFS controls and
mined land's reclamation. The Albemarle*-Pamlico Sound Estuarine
Project in North Carolina will incorporate innovative NFS BMPs
designed to minimize loss of nutrients from agricultural lands.
In EPA's Region V, Indiana, Michigan and Ohio have continued
efforts to implement Phosphorus Load Reduction Plans in
accordance with Annex III of the international agreement between
the'United States and Canada on cleanup of the Great Lakes.- In
Illinois, twenty-one new watersheds have received funding through
the State-funded Watershed Land Treatment Project program. The
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has completed
development of the Wisconsin Nonpoint Source (WIN) Model, funded
by. the Great Lakes National Program Office. Four more
large-scale watershed plans were completed and approved, as well
as the Bass Lake small-scale nonpoint source-pollution-project '(a
prototype of future program direction). Minnesota has
established its own nonpoint source program entitled "Clean Water
Partnership" and has developed its own land retirement program,
"Reinvest in Minnesota", for marginal and highly erodible
croplands.. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency led an
interagency effort focusing on development of a strategy for
nonpoint source control for the Minnesota River. The Indiana
Department of Natural Resources has a new cost-share program that
will focus on agricultural erosion as well as urban soil and
water problems related to construction and development.
The City of/ San
problems due to/urban
local businesses—and
Angelo}
runoff.
Texas, faced with water quality
raised revenue with the support of
general public, installed structural
BMPs and improved water quality sufficiently to make a planned
riverwalk project a success and boost the local economy. In New
Mexico, the City of Las Vegas, the U.S. Forest Service and the
U.S. Geological Survey are cooperating in a project to
demonstrate the effectiveness of forestry BMPs in minimizing
water'quality degradation from timber cutting.
The State of Iowa has begun implementation of a multi-year
Integrated Farm Management Program linking energy conservation
and the prevention of ground water contamination by agricultural
chemicals; the effort is funded in part by a portion of the
State's oil overcharge funds. Iowa has also adopted landmark
ground-water legislation which raises funds through user fees on
agricultural chemicals, fertilizers, solid-waste landfills and
household chemicals to finance research and implementation of
control measures to protect and improve the quality of surface
and ground water. Nebraska has initiated legislation to create
Special Protection Areas -where special actions to correct or
prevent contamination of ground water by agricultural chemicals
can be mandated. .
-------
-14-
In Utah, the Snake Creek Rural Clean Water Pro'ject (RCWP) has
documented significant reductions in phosphorus (40-65%),
nitrogen (45-60%), ' and bacteria (50-90%) within three years of|
implementation of animal waste management systems, indicating a
much shorter response time for BMPs in arid, irrigated areas than
expected. The Big Stone Lake RCWP project, involving an
interstate watershed in Minnesota and South" Dakota,, has
documented the importance of (1) early, careful planning and
communication and (2) the use of computer models to target
critical sub-watershed areas for successfully addressing NPS
water quality problems in a large watershed involving many
jurisdictions.
In EPA Region IX, Regional efforts have encouraged development
of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Soil Conservation
Service, the State of Hawaii Department of Health and each of the
fifteen Soil and Water -Conservation Districts. This will mean
total coverage of the State regarding agricultural nonpoint
source pollution responsibilities. In EPA's Region X, Alaska is
preparing to implement NPS controls for timber harvesting in its
southeastern region. Idaho's agricultural water pollution
abatement program has fourteen projects in the planning phase and
seventeen projects in the implementation phase with the State's
investment totalling $10 million to date. Oregon has implemented
a number of NPS management projects involving agricultural,
silvicultural and urban runoff controls, among them the highly
successful Tillimook Bay project to restore and protect
areas impaired by animal wastes from dairy operations. In
State of Washington, major elements of the Puget Sound Water
Quality Plan focus largely on NPS controls; The' Timber, Fish and
Wildlife (TFW) Agreement - reached after lengthy, painstaking
negotiations between Federal and State agencies, local elected
officials, citizen and environmental groups, trade and industry
associations and the Indian tribes - has led to a strengthening
of the State's Forest Practices Act and significant additional
funding to be used by the Departments of Natural Resources and
Ecology for the implementation and monitoring of NPS controls. .
EPA's Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation has also
evaluated and documented several innovative NFS' management
strategies and approaches designed to make more efficient and
effective use of existing pollution control authorities,
incentives and management tools. Two examples are (1) a
case- study of an innovative management program initiated by the
Panhandle Health District in Idaho to protect a sole- source
aquifer from contamination by septic tanks and (2) documentation
of the cost-effectiveness of NPS controls or a mix of point and
nonpoint source controls over alternative improvements in
achieving phosphorus management goals in the Upper Wicomico River
watershed, a small drainage area on Maryland's Eastern Shore.
X. Conclusion
-------
-15-
In summary, it is too early to document and report clear
evidence of progress since passage of Section 319 "in reducing
pollution in the navigable waters resulting from nonpoint sources
" However, the necessary steps to assist and enable the
States to comply with the provisions of Sectioji 319 have been
taken and it appears that the States are on schedule to comply
with statutory deadlines. National guidance clarifying the
specific requirements of Section 319 and encouraging the States
to integrate their nonpoint source activities with other water
programs has been developed and issued. All affected-and
interested parties were invited and encouraged to participate in
this development process to assure that the guidance was both
equitable and reasonable. FY 1987 Subsection 205(j)(5) reserves
in. the amount of $12.539 million were distributed to the EPA
Regions. Grants based on these reserves are being made 'to the
States for developing their NPS Assessment Reports and Management
Programs. EPA continues to provide technical assistance to the
States to the extent resources allow. Many States and localities
have begun to address NPS water quality problems in a variety of
ways, including the commitment of State and local funds, and will
be building on those, efforts as they develop and begin to
implement their NPS Management Programs under Section 319.
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
STATE CLEAN WATER STRATEGIES:
MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF THE "FUTURE
-------
-------
STATE CLEAN WATER STRATEGIES
MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF THE FUTURE
December 1987
Office of Water
ILS. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
-------
NOTE TO THE READER:
This guidance is intended to be supportive of the program-specific guidance documents .that provide
the details on what EPA and the States must do in order to meet the Congressional mandates under
various provisions of the Water Quality Act (WQA). In carrying out responsibilities under the
WQA, EPA and the States must address the requirements and deadlines in these documents.
Documents that are available now (or in the immediate future) include:
• Clean Lakes Program Guidance
Guidance on State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund • ,
• Implementation of Requirements Under §304<1) of the Clean Water Act, as Amended
• Nbnpoint Source Guidance
• State Water Quality-based Toxics Control Program Review Guidance
Other guidance documents, policies, strategies, and regulations will become available throughout
FY1988.
-------
STATE CLEAN WATER STRATEGIES:
MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF THE FUTURE
INTRODUCTION
The Water Quality Act of 1987 (WQA) offers a special opportunity for regulatory agencies, the
regulated community, and the public to implement the ambitious new initiatives in concert with
ongoing core Clean Water Act (CWA) programs. States have been actively involved-in water
quality management planning since before the 1972 CWA, and, under the amendments, need to
address important new responsibilities'in the areas of surface water toxics, nonpoint source
pollution, clean lakes, and estuaries. In addition, wetlands and groundwater represent very
important resources that merit protective efforts. Hence there is both a compelling need and an
excellent opportunity for States to be creatively responsive in fulfilling their statutory
responsibilities.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is actively encouraging States to meet the goals and
requirements of the WQA to the fullest extent possible, and to do so in an open, consultative
framework using the latest techniques of problem assessment and management. This document
describes what EPA views as a rational process for States to use in satisfying their WQA
requirements through an open and integrated three stage process of waterbody/resource
assessment, water resource targeting, and strategic management planning. Each State has unique
resources and environmental problems, different institutional arrangements, and different priorities.
The problem assessment and management process described in this guidance allows each State
great flexibility in determining how it will pursue an integrated approach to solving its particular
problems within its particular institutional framework.
The comprehensive process described in this guidance is intended to complement and coalesce, and
to be supportive of EPA's program*specific guidance documents, policies, strategies, and
regulations, which provide the details on what EPA and the States need to do in order to meet the
Congressional mandates under the various provisions of the WQA. Therefore, in carrying out their
responsibilities under the WQA (nonpoint sources, estuaries. Clean Lakes, and surface water
toxics), EPA and the States will take into account these other documents as well (see inside front
cover for listing). - .., - - ' ~
WQA IMPLEMENTATION PRINCIPLES
The following principles serve as the foundation for the process described in this document, as well
as overall WQA implementation:
1. EPA and the States will strive to meet the statutory goals, requirements, and deadlines of the
Act to the fullest extent possible.
2. EPA and the States will pursue with vigor both the new initiatives under the 1987 WQA and
the ongoing programs, priorities and responsibilities of the traditional CWA programs.
3. Where all water quality problems.cannot be addressed immediately, EPA and die States will,
using multi-year approaches, Iset priori ties {and direct their efforts and resources to
maximizing environmental benefits by dealingHnth the most serious water quality problems
and the most valuable and threatened resources first
-------
-2-
4.
Where possible, EPA and the States will combine activities across program areas to promote
environmental results, avoid redundant efforts, satisfy multiple requirements, and facilitate
efficient, effective use of resources.
5. In meeting near-term WQA statutory deadlines, States will exercise diligence
existing and readily obtainable information to identify known and suspected water quality
problems. In the longer-term. States will continue to collect and generate new data.
6. In order to capture as much information, data, and expertise as possible, EPA and the States
will actively solicit input and participation from interested and informed parties throughout the
process. •• ~
7. EPA will encourage States through policies, guidance, and assistance to use innovative,
comprehensive approaches to WQA implementation.
8. EPA will work with States to improve their capability to meet statutory requirements through
training, technical support, guidance, and review of State programs and support' to upgrade
programs, as needed.
9. EPA will also exercise -its oversight responsibilities to ensure national consistency in meeting
the requirements of the WQA.
10. EPA will work with other Federal agencies consistent with the WQA to share information and
data, and to encourage those agencies to operate their programs in support of State strategies.
1 1. The State may incorporate its multi-year SCWS into its water quality management (WQM) plan
pursuant to the Continuing Planning Process (CPP) or its §106 Annual Program Plan. The
State will submit .its. completed WQA assessmem(s) as part of its FY 1988 biennial §305(b)
Report, which will be updated on an annual basis where specifically required by law.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCWS AND OTHER WQA/CWA ACTIVITIES
Before^McribingUieState Gean Water Strategy (SCWS) process, it is important to recognize that
this is ayplunlaiy'prucess)that can be used along with other management planning documents and
activities^unSerwa^Biese activities fall into two general categories: new activities under the WQA
and ongoing activities under the CWA.
Other WQA Materials and Actions
There axe a number of documents that pertain to implementation of the WQA of 1987, and it is
important to understand the relationship among these various documents.
EPA initially produced a Section-bv-Secrion Analysis of the separate provisions of the WQA in
succinct narrative form. The purpose of this document was to familiarize Regions, States, and the
regulated community with the basic provisions in the law. The Clean Water Strategy -1987 then
set forth some general implementation principles and EPA's initial recommendations for States to
follow in developing an integrated, strategic approach to WQA implementation that is set forth more
fully in this document. The Strategy also included eleven program-specific Attachments that
described the Agency's general program strategy for each area.
-------
-3-
In addition, each program has been conducting workgroups to prepare individual guidance
documents, regulations, and policies for Regions and States to use in addressing specific
implementation issues. A number of these guidance documents are now available in final form (see
inside front cover for listing), and, as mentioned above, this document in no way supersedes'those
program-specific guidances. Finally, the FY1988 Agency Operating Guidance sets forth the
specific national priorities and program activities chat EPA Regions and States will undertake in FY
1988, and served as the basis for negotiating FY 1988 workplans.
The Clean Water Act and the Water Quality Act of 1987
EPA and the States have been engaged in an array of water pollution control programs and activities
for many years. The process described in this document is not intended to drive the entire water
pollution control program in the short-term. Regions and States are expected to maintain the
integrity of their core water pollution control programs and activities consistent with available
resources and national priorities, policies, regulations and guidance. Congress continues to fund
these core programs, and did not intend for EPA or the States to lose momentum in existing
program implementation.
In addition, there are some mandates under the WQA of 1987. that place constraints on the degree to
which activities can be merged. In the area of surface water toxics controls under §308, for
example, the initial round of individual control strategies for point sources must be implemented by
February 1989. In order to meet this statutory deadline, States do not have any discretion
regarding either tinging or location of control measures. Consequently, these are critical activities
that must proceed immediately and independent of any coordinated effort, while the key
longer-term activities under §308 (such as setting priorities for new toxics monitoring, problem
assessments and controls) may be folded into an integrated, strategic approach.
While the WQA sets forth some priorities explicitly in the law, however, EPA and the States have
some degree of flexibility in other areas. The SCWS exercise is intended to enable States to take
advantage of these opportunities, and to deal with their water quality problems in a holistic, rather
than piecemeal, fashion. This may lead to implementation of a watershed or geographic-based
approach, which combines the tools and resources of several programs on selected waterbodies, or
to an approach thai provides a better mesh between ongoing CWA activities (such as wetlands
protection) and new WQA activities.
STATE CLEAN WATER STRATEGIES
State Clean Water Strategies (SCWS) provicteStates an opportunity to satisfy their WQA
requirements through an open and integraiedfohree stage process] of waterbody/resources
assessment, water resource targeting, and strategic management planning. The following is a brief
description of how EPA views the process. Within this overall framework, however, States are
actively encouraged to use innovative and creative approaches to completing each step. Each State
and EPA should agree to a consultative process throughout the development and implementation of
the SCWS. In addition, where States appear to be using techniques that are especially successful,
EPA will make this information available immediately so that other States can benefit from these
experiences.
-------
There are three themes that-recur throughout this guidance and throughout the entire SCWS
process. The first is the necessity to establish - and keep in the forefront - long-range, multi-year
water quality objectives. The second is the importance of establishing early, effective involvement"
of public interest groups, elected officials, the media and others who may be interested and able' _
assist in the process. The third is "targeting," which is the process of ordering and adjusting'
priorities to ensure that available resources and efforts are applied to programs that will-achieve the
greatest water quality benefits. •
Step 1: Assessments (Fall - Spring 1987/88)
Assessment involves identifying impaired waters. The objectives of this step are to:
• Identify impaired waterbodies to use as the basis for pollution prevention and control
actions;
* Identify threatened waterbodies in need of protection;
• Identify gaps in information on water quality to use as the basis for determining where to
focus ongoing and future data collection efforts.
In conducting assessments. States should consider combining the similar WQA requirements under
several provisions of the WQA: §316 nonpoint sources; §315 Clean Lakes; §317 estuary
programs; and the second phase of work under §308 surface water toxics controls. Appendix 1
contains a brief description of the assessments required under each of these provisions. The
advantages of combining these assessments arc to: help States identify geographical problems and
crossmedia "hot spots"; make data gaps more apparent; encourage non-traditional, multi-agency
coordination and cooperation; and form the basis for comprehensive pollution control efforts.
An assessment consists of three activities:
L. Obtain Existing; Data: Given the time constraints imposed by the WQA statutory deadlines.
States will have to reply largely on existing and readily obtainable data and information to meet
their near-term WQA obligations. The largest source of State water quality data is likely to
be in-house. However, States should expand their traditional efforts to
obtain data, and should seek out other existing and readily obtainable data that are available
from outside sources. The goal is to collect existing data on aquatic resources and habitat,
which goes beyond the information on file in the Agency. The intent is to capture quickly as
much existing data as practicable. Appendix 2 contains a list of potential sources of data.
2. Evaluate Data Quality and Identify Gaps in Information: Once the State has
• assembled its data and information, the next step is to analyze and evaluate the data. The aim
of this analysis is to evaluate the -quality and reliability of the data, identify gaps and
inconsistencies, and'draw conclusions on the accuracy and confidence of the data. In addition.
this will help determine what additional data and information will be needed to support
longer-term activities and decisions.
3. Identify Waterbodies: The next task is to pull together the information in a meaningful
form to serve as a basis for priority-setting and decision-making. The data should be arrayed
in a manner that indicates the degree of impairment for various waterbodies, and described
the basis for that decision. At a minimum, the assessment should distinguish between two
levels of data: monitored and evaluated. The first level or "monitored waters" applies to
waters where conclusions are based on current, site-specific ambient data. The second level o^^
• ' • W
-------
-5-
" evaluated waters" applies to waters where conclusions are based on earlier ambient data,
information on sources of pollution, predictive modeling, fishery surveys, citizen surveys, and
other anecdotal data. Based on this preliminary waterbody assessment. States should also
draw initial conclusions on the need for future water sampling, analysis, and related data
gathering. .
The assessment process should be completed by April 1988, and will be submitted as part of the
State's FY 1988 §305(b) report.
To accomplish this work, a State agency could work through its traditional channels. However,
EPA actively encourages States to expand their horizons, and to seek input from all informed
parties during all three steps outlined above. Opening the process can lead to new data, information
and ideas, and can also generate a broad-based coalition of support for the assessment itself. EPA
is not mandating a particular fonim or format for promoting this expanded involvement, but urges
States to make every effort to involve their informed public.
In addition, because the §305(b) process is being used to meet several WQA mandated assessments
that EPA must review and approve, EPA will offer technical assistance and will be available for an
active, cooperative role in this process. EPA is required by various provisions of the WQA to
review and approve State assessments with attendant public participation requirements. Where a
State uses an open, collaborative approach to the assessment, with broad participation by water
quality experts and the informed public, EPA will likely be required to exercise much less review of
the resultant assessment than where a State chooses to rely on a more closed approach to
information gathering.
In either case, the assessments will have to meet minimum statutory requirements, which include:
» A description of the process the State used to complete the assessment;
• A summary of all information collected, analyzed, and used, including outside sources
of data;
• A discussion of the nature, extent and results of public and expert participation,
especially any new forms/forums used to involve the informed public;
* A description of the S tate's findings in terms of data gaps;
• A summary of the overall dimensions of the State's water quality problems; and
• An explanation of how the State prepared its assessment of the waterbodies.
Step 2: Water Resource Targeting (Summer 1988)
This step is the heart of the SCWS process, and involves identifying the sequence for protecting
'resources. The objectives are to: .
• Arrange priorities in order to target water resources for immediate control action; and
• Identify the most important water resources for further study, as necessary (for example,
intensive surveys, new water quality monitoring, and data/information collection
activities, etc.)
-------
This guidance does not provide a prescriptive ranking and targeting procedure that States must
follow. Rather it provides a general framework and a set of targeting criteria that States should
consider during the targeting stage of the process.' A national workshop involving participant
representing Federal, State, local and environmental groups will be held in Spring 1988 to discus
various approaches to targeting and the results of the workshop will be shared with all States.-
The waterbody assessment conducted in Step 1 provides information on the entire range of a
State's water quality problems. It is likely that this process will result in a fairly long list of
problem areas that represent a substantial workload. As a practical matter, therefore, States will
probably find it both useful and necessary to carve put a subset of work for the concerted action
within the multi-year timeframe of the SCWS. This will be especially necessary for nonpoint
source programs, where the current level of base activity is very low. EPA is recommending that
this be accomplished based on a comparative evaluation of the State's waters. The guiding
principle for this step is to maximize environmental benefit by devoting resources and efforts to
.water problems in a priority order that recognizes the values of the waterbody in question, the
benefits to be realized from various control actions (including evidence of local public interest and
support), and the controllability of the problem(s).
Since different governmental agencies, groups, and individuals place a different value on water
resources for a number of reasons, the objective of the ranking and targeting process is to foster a
balanced approach that results in the targeting of water bodies that reflects an evaluation of relative
value and benefit In order to achieve that level of confidence, die following criteria should be
considered:
1. What waterbodies are most valuable from various perspectives - aquatic habitat, recreation,
and water supply for example?
2. What waterbodies are subject to adverse effects from both pollution and aquatic habij
destruction (wetlands), and can be impacted by water programs?
3. What tools are available to address the waterbodies identified? ' .
4. What areas are most likely to be improved through governmental action?
5. Which problems are most amenable to the available cools and controls?
6. What is the degree of public support (local or statewide) to protect a particular aquatic resource?
7. How willing are other governmental agencies to take steps to use their tools and resources to
help address the problem? ~ • .
8. Where would "combined actions" offer the greatest benefit relative to the value of the aquatic
resource?
Water resource-based targeting is an effort that may be carried out as follows:
1. Group waterbodies based on the most serious problems: While this is not an exact
science, there are quantitative and surrogate indicators of use and/or use impairment that the
State can use to make meaningful and defensible groupings of waterbodies in something as
simple as high/medium/low categories; and
-------
-7- .
2. Select areas for immediate control action and identify the most important areas
for further study: This involves looking at various combinations of short- and long-term
actions, controls, and management plans that offer the greatest potential for achieving
environmental benefits and meeting overall water program goals.
— • ^
The State may choose to approach this process narrowly on a program-by-program basis, or may
opt to focus more broadly across programs and adopt a watershed or geographic-based plan that
combines the tools and resources of several water programs. The process is not one with
"scientific validity." Rather it is one that relies on using both quantitative data and surrogate
indicators of use and/or use impairment, as well as expert judgement, to make meaningful,
defensible groupings of waterbodies.
While State environmental agencies are responsible for determining priorities, the overall goal of
this step is to end up with a meaningful targeting of waterbodies that helps the State direct its
activities. Consequently, public participation is vital to the success of the targeting phase to
generate the necessary consensus and support for future implementation- and funding. EPA urges
States to expand their existing public involvement activities, and to consider using public interactive
workshops and invited public experts. To support States that choose to follow this approach, EPA
will provide training and technical assistance, as well as financial assistance to help States develop
^meaningful public participation programs.
Step 3: State Management Plans (Fall 1988)
At the end of the first two steps, the State should have a sense of strategic direction. The last step
involves converting these concepts into a management plan to guide its actions over a multi-year
period. This plan should identify an approach, set out a general schedule for accomplishing the
overall mission (including some broad interim milestones for accomplishment), and explain how
resources and efforts will be directed to protecting and/or restoring aquatic resources and habitat.
In short, a management plan or a set of interrelated action plans provides die connection between
the strategic direction and the State's annual work plans for carrying out the work over a multi-year
period. " \ , -
The SCWS addresses the following:
1. Scope of Coverage: The scope of a management plan depends upon whether the State
elected to use a comprehensive, integrated approach or a more traditional programmatic
approach. So long as WQA requirements for specific management plans (nonpoint source,
. Clean Lakes, estuaries) are met, the State may submit either one comprehensive management
plan or one that consists of multiple plans covering each of its program areas. In either case,
the submission should pull together the results and conclusions from Steps i and 2
(assessment/targeting), explain how the data and information were translated into the
management planand recognize the interconnections of water programs.
2. Sequence of Actions: The management plan should address problems through a sequence
of activities and control efforts, and should describe how the State plans to address relative
priority problems in the appropriate order. Since the SCWS is multi-year, it should discuss a
proposed schedule in general terms, set out a challenging but realistic timetable, and establish
some interim milestones for accomplishment. Where a State plans to shift its base level water
program to a geographic or watershed approach in order to deal more effectively with
cross-media/ cross program problems, it should explain how this will be carried out without
undermining the integrity of its base level program.
-------
r8-
Format
States are encouraged to use innovative approaches to pull together their information and
For example, a management plan may be a separate introductory chapter to the State's
program plan or may be incorporated into a State WQM plan, so long as it is multiryear
recognizes the interconnections among water programs. On the other hand, it may be a separate
document that forms the basis, for annual work plans in the future. EPA would look favorably on
other models or formats, and encourages States to use their ingenuity in displaying the materials
and the sequencing of actions.
The SCWS should be completed by the beginning of FY 1989 (October 1,1988). It should:
• Describe the process the State followed in developing its SCWS by updating the
description from Step 1 (assessment) to reflect what happened in Step 2 (targeting);
* Discuss the nature, extent and results of public and expert participation, as well as any
plans to involve the informed public on a continuing basis;
» Identify the waters that have been targeted for immediate control action, and explain the
means to 'reduce the pollutant loads and aquatic habitat destruction, including
management plans/programs, individual controls on point and nonpoint sources, and
methods/procedures;
Describe the most important data gaps and areas for further study, and highlight any
plans to generate the additional data and information necessary to make future decisions
on the nature and extent of the problem and .the appropriate control solution, including
assistance most appropriately provided by EPA (research, technical assistance, training);
* Outline a multi-year schedule for addressing problems in a sequential fashion based
appropriate priorities. This schedule should address four or more years of strateg
planning activity;
• Discuss the current legal and regulatory authorities available to support planned
activities, as well as potential sources of funding and personnel to support
implementation activities; and
* Describe future plans for establishing Ionger-term working relationships with other State
programs and/or agencies to assist with the implementation of activities in a coordinated
manner.
Developing and Updating Management Plans in Future Years
In FY 1989, States that developed multi-year management plans may need to update these
documents to complete integration of key longer-term activities that will be necessary to fully
implement the surface water toxics provisions of the WQA. These changes may include expanding
and/or setting priorities for new water quality monitoring for toxics, as necessary. States may also
choose to update other aspects of their SCWSs as a result of new information.
In addition, FY 1988 is the first year States will have an opportunity to develop SCWSs, and not
all States will choose tO-participate. In addition, there may be States that begin the process in FY
1988, but are unable to complete the entire exercise in the recommended timeframes set forth in this
-------
-9-
guidance. In FY 1989, therefore, some new States may choose to develop SCWSs through a
targeting and ranking exercise, and some States may complete the work commenced in FY 1988.
To assist in these efforts, EPA headquarters will promote transfer of information and ideas
generated by States that successfully completed the SCWS exercise in FY 1988.
-------
-------
APPENDIX 1
-------
-------
APPENDIX 1
The Water Quality Act of 1987 (WQA) represents a comprehensive revision of the Clean Water
Act, and mandates a number of new State water pollution control initiatives to be carried oat in
addition to ongoing water pollution control responsibilities. Several of these new WQA. provisions
require Sates to use a similar approach of information collection, assessment, and development and
implementation of control mechanisms or management plans. Although each of these mandates
might be carried out independently under its separate program authority, it makes more sense to
combine these activities wherever possible, leading to comprehensive, integrated solutions to water
pollution.
There are four principal provisions of the WQA that involve information collection, assessment,
and control solutions: • . . -
§316: Management of Nonpoint Sources of Pollution: By August 1988,-each State
must prepare an assessment and management program for nonpoint source pollution. The
assessment stage must:
• Identify affected waters: a list of navigable waters which, without additional action to
control NFS, cannot be expected to attain or maintain water quality standards (WQS) or
beneficial uses;
• Identify sources of pollution: .categories and subcategories, or where appropriate
particular nonpoint sources which add significant pollution to each portion of the
identified waters in amounts which contribute to not meeting WQS or meeting beneficial
uses;
• Describe controls:
Process, including intergovernmental coordination and public participation for
identifying best management practices (BMPs) and measures to control/reduce
pollution from each category/subcategory/particxilar NFS; and
State and local programs for controlling NFS pollution and improving water
quality, including programs receiving Federal assistance under WQA provisions
for grants for NFS and groundwater protection.
The WQA also sets forth specific requirements for the contents of State management programs, and
provides that, to the maximum extent practicable. States must develop and implement their
management program on a watershed-by-watershed basis within the State.
§308: Individual Control Strategies for Toxic Pollutants: This provision of the WQA
requires States to undertake a progressive program of toxics reduction. By February 1989, each
State must:
• Identify affected waters:
A list of all waters for which, after application of required technology-based
controls, cannot be expected to attain or maintain WQS due to toxic pollutants, or
attain or maintain that water quality necessary to protect beneficial uses due to
point source or NFS discharge of toxics, conventional or nonconventional
pollutants (this is the so called "long list" of waters);
-------
-2-
— As a subset of above, a list of all waters which, after application of required
technology-based controls cannot reasonably be anticipated to attain or
maintain WQS for §307(a) toxic pol'.ufznts due to either point or nonpoin
source pollution; ^
A list of "all waters for which applicable WQS cannot be achieved after
technology-based controls due entirely or substantially to point source discharges
of §307(a) toxics (this is the so called "short list" of waters).
Identify the Source* of Pollution: for each segment identified on the "shots list,"
determine the specific point sources discharging any toxic pollutant that is preventing use
or impairing water quality, and the amount of each toxic pollutant discharged by each
source. ,
Implement Controls: for each segment on the "short list," develop an individual control
strategy to reduce the discharge of toxic pollutants (through permits in combination with
existing point and nonpoint source controls) sufficient to achieve WQS within three
years. As a matter of policy, EPA is also requiring individual control strategies (through
permits) to be developed to address all known toxicity problems, including chlorine,
ammonia, and whole effluent toxicity.
In a related provision (§308(d», States are directed to develop toxic chemical WQS and narrative
criteria based on biological assessment methods.
§315: Clean Lakes: This provision of the WQA reaffirms that lakes are a vital national
resource, and establishes a demonstration program. By April 1988 (and every two years thereafter)
each State is required to submit a report on lake water quality that must:
••" Identify affected waters:
List and classify by eutropMc condition all publicly owned lakes;
List and describe all publicly .owned lakes for which uses are known to be
impaired (including lakes not meeting WQS or requiring control programs to
maintain WQS) and lakes where water quality has deteriorated as a result of acid
deposition;
Describe status and trends of lake water quality, including nature/extent of
point/NPS loading and extent of impairment, particularly with respect 10 toxic
pollution.
• Identify sources: N/A
• Describe controls:
Procedures, processes, and methods (including land use provisions) to control
sources of pollution;
Methods and procedures, in conjunction with appropriate Federal agencies, to
restore lake quality;
Methods and procedures to mitigate the effects of harmful acidity, includi
innovative methods of neutralizing and restoring buffering capacity of lakes a
methods of removing toxic metals and other toxic substances mobilized by high
acidity. .
-------
-3-
*•
In order to be eligible for grant assistance, States must submit the required reports that cover these
elements.
§317: National Estuary. Program: Under these new provisions. Congress declares that it is
national policy to maintain and enhance the water quality in estuaries and provide for the biological
integrity of these waters. The Governor of a State or the EPA Administrator may nominate an
estuary of national significance, and convene a management conference to:
• In selected waters, identify:
Trends in water quality, natural resources and uses of estuaries;
Data on toxics, nutrients, and natural resources to identify causes of environmental
problems;
• In selected waters, identify: the relationship between inplace loads and point/NFS
pollutant loadings, and potential uses of the zone, water quality, and natural resources.
• Develop plan:
Comprehensive conservation and management plan that recommends priority
corrective actions and compliance schedules for point/NFS sources of pollution;
Coordinated implementation by the States as well as Federal and local agencies.
The WQA provides for grants to assist in work necessary to develop a conservation and
management plan.
While each of these four provisions addresses a specific problem and sets forth specific
requirements, there are some common denominators among the various sections: collecting data
and information, identifying affected waters, identifying the sources of pollution, and developing
controls (individual control strategies, management programs or plans, or methods/procedures).
Although these common themes lend themselves to an integrated, strategic approach to carrying.out
the various WQA initiatives, it is important to recognize that other mandates under the WQA place
constraints on the degree to which activities can be merged. These are discussed in the text of the
SCWS guidance.
-------
-------
APPENDIX 2
-------
-------
DATA SOORCTS APPLICABLE TO ASSESSMENT AND TARGETING .
OF WATER BODI£$
IL ZPA Data Sources,
A. Computerized Data Systems
EPA maintain* the following water quality-related data bases,
containing stats and EPA data. Most of this information is.
iinksd together for access using the rsach file coding structure
undsr STORZT. Permit Compliance System (PCS) data is available
directly through PCS coordinators (located, in regions and states)
or through Reach File Systems in related pilot project regions
(Regions I, II, III, IV, and V).
These data bases, individually and through linkages that have
been and are being developed, can be very useful in assessing
water quality. For instance, ambient water quality data, in the
STOR2T system's Water Body File can be compared with state water *
quality standards or EPA water quality criteria quickly to *
identify those water bodies where standards have been exceeded.
Reach File
o Nation's major water bodies divided into some 70,000
individual segments (reaches).
o Reaches assigned numbers/names
o Locational data includes latitude/longitude, state and
county codes
o Associated Reach Characteristics File-contains physical
characteristics for segments in Reach File—slope,
elevations/ width, depth, velocity, etc.
o Associated Gauge File contains annual mean and low flow and
• monthly mean flow estimatee
o Linked to Drinking Water Supply File, giving location of
water supply sources/intakes
Contact: Bob Born, OWRS, criteria and Standards Division
EPA Headquarters
Phone: ITS 382-7103/ (202) 382-7103
Water QUjlitv File
o Water quality data from about 200,000 stations
o Locational data for each station— ID No., reach assignment,
latitude/longitude, etate/county
o Data on hundreds of parameters, most common of which include
pH, temperature, DO, solids, nitrogen, metals
o Info on use impairment from ASWIPCA State's Evaluation of
Progress (STEP) and NPS reports
o- National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) study data
(listing continued on next page)
-------
Contact: STORET Customer Support
Office of Information Resources Management
EPA Headquarters
FTS 382-7220 OJC (800) 424-9067
(Note: Until recently, STORET and the Water Quality File were
synonymous, but STORZT is now becoming a much broader
system linking a number of EPA data .bases.)
Industrial Facilities Discharge Pile
o Data on 60,000 industrial and municipal discharges -
b Industrial SIC codes, reach assignments, effluent 'data
o Information on indirect discharges to POTWs
Contact: Phil Taylor
OWRS, Monitoring and Data Support Division
EPA Headquarters • .
FTS 382-7046/ (202) 382-7046
Permit Compliance System-
o Records on 65,000 NPDES permits
o Locational data on permitted facilities, including link t
Reach File
o Pollutant-specific discharge limits
o Data from Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs)
o Automatic detection of violations of effluent limits
o Special feature of link to STORET provides estimates of
effluent dilution ratios (average or low stream flow)
Contact: Larry Reed
OWEP, Enforcement Division
EPA Headquarters
FTS 475-S373/ (202) 475-8373
Phil Taylor (PCS/STORET link)
—see IFD File listing for phone number
SISS •
o Data on the distribution, abundance, and condition of
aquatic organisms, including fish tissue analysis
o Descriptions of habitat at sampled sites-!—substrate type,
streaabank stability, canopy type
o Generates diversity indices/community structure analyses
o Will incorporate CETIS (see belov)
Contact: Barbara Lamborne —-
Office of Information Resources Management
EPA Headquarters
FTS 382-7220/ (202) 382-7220 . :
-------
Complex affluentToxicitvInformation System
o Data-from whole effluent toxicity tests " .
Contact: David Eng
OWE?, permits Division
EPA Headquarters
FTS 47S-9522/ (202) 473-9522
water Body File (under development)
o Computerized, system of recording information needed to
prepare 305(b) reports
o Correlated with Reach File segments
o To contain assessment data, including type(s) and magnitude
of impairment, categories of point and nonpoint sources
Contact: Bruce.Newton
OWRS, Monitoring and Data Support Division
EPA Headquarters
FTS 382-7074/ (202) 382-7074
STORET Nonocint Source Stream Station File
o data on 700 stations from 22 states estimated to be
primarily impacted by KPS
o STORET number, river reach number, state, county
o relative contribution of NPS in vet and low flow conditions
of nine general pollutant types
Contact: Steve Dressing
OWRS, Criteria and Standards Division
Nonpoint Sources Branch
SPA Headquarters
FTS 382-7110/ (202) 382-7110 -
Federal Reporting; Data System fFSDSj
o Inventory of public water supply systems in the U.S.
p Listing of exceedences of national drinking water standards
in treated water (not in raw water supply)
o Some; information on location of raw water supplies for some
systems -
Contact: Debbie Roes
Data Management Section
Office of Drinking water
EPA Headquarters
FTS 382—2804 / (202) .3-82-2804
-------
Heads g^rvfY File
o Data from the.1986 Heeds Survey.covering approximately
24,000 existing and proposed POTWs in need of construction
o Approximately 200 data elements including facility
characteristics and location, construction costs, population
served, effluent characteristics, and more
o LinXed to the Reach File, PCS
Contact: Lee Pasarev, OMPC, Municipal Facilities Division
EPA Headquarters
Phone: FTS 382-7251/(202) 382-7251
Grants Information Control Svsten
^^^^
o Data on all EPA construction grants projects for POTWs
o Contains administrative, financial, technical, and project
status information on each SPA grant
o LinXed to the Heeds Survey and PCS
Contact: Sylvia Bell, OMPC, Municipal Construction Division
EPA Headquarters
FTS 382-S837/ (202) 382-5837
B. Other EPA Data Sources
Regional Priority Wetlands Lists
o
o
Lists of most valuable (productive, unique) and vulnerable
wetlands in each EPA Region
Prepared by EPA Regional offices
Contacts Office of Wetlands Protection
.JPA Headquarters
382-7496 / (202) 382-7496
(also contact Regional wetlands staff)
Other Program-Specific Guidance (e.g.. 304 m. 319. 314)
o under 304(1), reach-by- reach listing of toxic pollutants and
discharges
Contact: Monitoring and Data Support Division
Office of water
EPA Headquarters
FTS 382-704.0 / (202) 382-7040
-------
II. Depar*"a|"|+' Qf Inferior Data S
Water Data Storage and Retrieval System rWATSTOREI
o Managed by USGS
o Water quality data for 5,000 sampling stations
o Data on pea* and daily flows from some 8,000 stations
o' Incorporates data from USGS's NASQAN system
(Note: all water quality-data from WATSTOR2 included in STORST)
Contact: Owen Williams
Water Resources Division
U.S.G.S.
Reston, VA
(703) 648-5684
National Water Data Exchange fNAWDEX^ . . - f
o Managed by USGS
o Listing of all organizations nationwide collecting water
data
o Master Water Index provides information on about 400,000
data collection sites
if
Contact: Owen Williams
• - Water Resources Division
U.S.G.S.
Reston, VA
(703) 648-5684
National Wetlands Inventory (partially completed)
o Managed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
o Computerized mapping scheme for entire country
o Vegetation data—3500 wetlands, species
o Ecological community types
o Classification according to wetlands types
Contact: Bill Wilen/Tom Dahl
Pish and wildlife Service
U.S. Department of Interior
Washington, D.C. 20240
(202) 653-8726
.Nationwide Rivers Inventory
o Developed by National Park Service
o List of over 1,500 river segments (around 62,000 miles)
thought to have sufficient natural or cultural attributes to
qualify for National Wild and Scenic Rivers system; excludes
rivers in System and official candidate rivers .
-------
Nationwide givers Inventory (cont.)
Contact: - Glen "Eugster
• Division of Park and Resource Planning
•National Parks Service
Philadelphia, PA
(215) 597-7386
Endangered Speciss Information Symtam fESI.51
o covers specias listed under federal Endangered Species Act
o Official status (endangered, threatened)
o Factors contributing to present status
o Habitat types with which species associated
o Present/past location by county/state
o watersheds/subunits where .found
o .Counties/states with designated critical habitat
Contact: Michael J. Rein
Office of Endangered Species
Department of Interior
Washington, D.C. 20240
(703) 235-2760
Wildlife Service
o List of all National Wildlife Refuges. and other lands under
the control of the Pish and wildlife Service
Contact: Division of Realty
Fish and wildlife Service
.U.S. Department of Interior
Washington, D.C. 20240
(202) 653 7650
National Nature! and
^ (National Park Service)
o A register of significant natural areas which illustrate the
diversity of the natural heritage of the U.S.
o Map* of areas
o Info en ecological and geological characteristics
o Xnf e on threats
Contact: Hardy Pearce
National Register Division
National Park Service
Wash, D.C. 20240
(202) 343-9525
-------
7
Land Use and Data ftnalvais (USGS)
o Report* land use by 40 different land use types for «ntira
USA - •
o Most 'data is from middle 1970 '•
o Data -based on LANDSAT satellite imagery
Contact: National Cartographic Information Center
USGS
Res ton, VA
(703) 648-6043
Inventory of Private Recreation Facilities
o Inventory of private recreation facilities
o Data reported by state, county and town
Contact: Paul Solomon
National Park Service
Wash., O.C. 20240
(202) 272-3730
National Survey of Fishing. Hunting and wildlife Associated
Recreation
o , Includes fishing and hunting information on expenditures,
times use, location and socio-economic characteristics
o Covers non-consumptive wildlife recreation
N.
Contact: Michael Ray •
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Washington, O.C. 20240
(202) 343-4902 •
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Estiaarine Inventory
o Covers 92 major estuaries
o Data on estuary dimensions, drainage area, stratification
classification, freshwater inflow rates, flow rations, and
tides
o Land use information for 25 categories of land use
o Computerized data base
Contact: Dan Bast a
NOAA
Washington, O.C.
(202) 443-8843
-------
8
national Coastal Wetlands Data Base
o Type, and extent of coastal wetlands by estuary
o Based on statistical sample of 3000 National Wetland
Contact: Dan Basta
KOAA
(202) 443-8843
National Shellfish Register
o Classifies shellfish beds according to water quality and
productivity
o Historical data available for some areas
Contact: Dan Basta (See above)
Shoreline Characterization
o Characterizes estuarine shoreline according to eight
shoreline types, and dredging activities
o . Shoreline type is reported on color coded HOAA nautical
charts
Contact: Dan Basta (See above)
National Coastal Pollutant Discharge Inventory
o Comprehensive data base of pollutant discharges entering
estuarine waters
o Source catagories include point sources, nonpoint sources,
upstream sources, oil and gas operations, dredging
operations and accidental spills.
o Computerized data base
Contact: Dan 'Basta (See above)
TV* Ofchjffi_yede3ral Pa^i Sources •
1 Resources Inventorv
o National survey based on 160 acre units
o Data on land use, conservation practices, soil type, erosion
Contact: Jeff Gable
Soil Conservation Service
U.S.D.A.
Washington, D.C. 20013
(202) 447-4530
-------
Land Areas of the national Forest Syatan (U.S. Forest Service)
o Organized by state and county
o Includes info on designated wilderness areas, priaitive
areas, recreation areas, wildlife preserves
Contact: Forest Service
Department of Agriculture
Washington, O.C. 20013
(202) 235-8105
Raeraation Information Management System
o Recreational facilities and areas in National Forest system •
o Data on types of recreation, visitor days, participation by
activity *
*
Contact: Gene Welsch
Recreation Management Division
U.S. Fozest Service
Washington, O.C. 20250
(202) 447-2311
IV.
Data. Sources
State Natural Heritage Programs
•\
o Designed to identify elements essential to preservation of
biological diversity
o Inventories on existence and. location of rare and endangered
plants and animals
o Inventories on unique plant communities, aquatic systems
o Over half this states have such programs , developed in
cooperation with The Nature Conservancy
Contact: Stats Natural Heritage Program Office in your state
Listing of state Heritage Program contacts:
Larry Thomas
The Nature Conservancy
1800 North Kent St.
Arlington, VA 22209
. (202) 841-5300
Priority Acroatie Sites For Biological Diversity Conservation
o Listing, by state, of waters containing Key elements of
biological diversity
o Developed with .assistance of state heritage programs
(listing continued on next page)
-------
10.
Priority_Asuatic Sites (cont.)
Contact: Bob Chipley
~ The Nature Conservancy
.. 1800 Worth Kent St.
Arlington, VA 22209
(202) 341-5300
Breading Bird Survey
o Census of 200 species by county
o Historical data available
Contact: Greg Butcher
Cornell Lab of Ornithology
Ithica, N.Y.
(607) 255-4999
Sogio-Eeonomiepivironaantal Demographic Info. Svaten *
o Collection of socio-economic, environmental, demographic and
health related data bases
o Covers geographic regions ranging from nation to minor civil
divisions
o Computerized data base updated annually
Contact: Deane Merril
Lawrence Berkeley Lab
Department of Energy
Berkeley, CA
(415) 436-5063
-------
APPENDIX B
NONPOINT SOURCE GUIDANCE
-------
-------
NONPOINT- SOURCE GUIDANCE
" DECEMBER 7987
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF WATER
OFFICE OF WATER REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
WASHINGTON, D.C.
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
i.
Introduction
PAGE
A. Goals . 1 -
B. The State Clean Water Strategy ,"( 1
C. Nonpoint Source Management in the State
Clean Water Strategy 2
D. Definition of Nonpoint Source Pollution 3
E. Program Inter-relationships 3
II. Implementation Approach
A. Development of State Assessment Reports
1. Introduction • 4
2. State Assessment Report Requirements 4
3. Explanation 5
4. Criteria for Approval of State Assessment Reports 8
B. Development of State Management Programs
1. Introduction.. 11
2, State Management Program Requirements 12
3. Explanation. . . 13
4. Criteria for Approval of State Management Programs 16
C. Administrative and Other Provisions
1. Deadline for Approval/Partial Approval 19
2. ProcSdure for Disapproval :.." 19
3. Which Agency is to Serve as the Lead for the 319 Program. 20
4. Water Quality Management Plan Updates 20
5. States Electing Not to Submit Assessment Reports 20
6. Local Agency Submittal of Management Program 21
7. Annual Reports by States and Report to Congress 21
8. Cooperation Requirement 23
9. Interstate Management Conference 23
10. Indian- Tribes 23
11. Technical Assistance 24
III. Grant Application Requirements
A. Section 20S(j)(5) 25
8. Section 319(h) 28
C. Section 319(i).. 32
D. Section 201(gHl).. 32
E. Section 603(c)(2) -, 32
F. .Section 604(b) : ". i. 33 ;
Appendix-A: Definition of Navigable Waters and Waters of the U.S
Appendix B: Major NPS Pollution Categories and Subcategories
Appendix C: NPS Provisions in the Water .Quality Act of 1987
-------
-------
NONPOI'NT SOURCE GUIDANCE
I, INTRODUCTION
A. Goals
The Water Quality Ace of 1987 (WQA) .states:
it is the national policy that programs for the control
of nonpoint sources of pollution be developed and imple-
mented in an expeditious manner so as to enable the goals
of this- Act to be met through the control of both point
and nonpoint sources of pollution.
This goal focuses on the importance of controlling nonpoint sources
of water pollution. With the enactment of section 319 of the WQA,
new direction and significant Federal financial assistance for the
implementation of State* nonpoint source (NFS) programs has been
authorized. The WQA requires two major reports to be completed by
August 4, 1988: a State Assessment Report describing the State's
NFS problems and a State Management Program explaining what the State
plans to do in the next four fiscal years to address their NFS problems.
The WOA authorizes financial assistance for developing these reports
and for implementing the State's NFS Management Program.
B. The State Clean Water Strategy
The 1987 legislation mandates a similar approach in information
collection, assessment, and the subsequejLE^, development and implemen-
tation of pollution control mechanisms tfoiTtargeted areas^.n the new
•Surface Water Toxics Control, Nonpoint Source, EstUdry, Clean Lakes,.
. and Great Lakes program areas. These activities, although conducted
under separate program.activities, may lead to identifying the same
water resources as being in need of pollution control measures. EPA
is encouraging States to develop State Clean Water Strategies** as a
la accordance with 'section 518(e) of the VQA, the .Administrator is
authorized to treat Indian tribes as States for the purposes of section
319. Therefore, throughout this guidance the term State shall refer to
States, Territories, and those Indian tribes designated b'y the Agency
under section 518(e).
' t-
State CleanJtajL&r Strategies are in absence a vehicle to better
to^anTd-cGofofina'te State water programs) and to improve
effectiveness 'By~~targeting activities to high priority geographic areas.
For more details on State Clean Water Strategies, see in particular: US
EPA, Office of Vater. State Clean Water Strategies: Meeting the
Challenges of the Future. December 1987 and US EPA, Office of Water.
Surface Water and Vet lands Protection Program Operating Guidance FY
1988. April 1987.
-------
means of addressing in a strategic way the variety of water pollution
sources, their inter-relationships and the many water resources that
are threatened.
C. Nonpoint Source Management In the State Clean Water Strategy
States have the opportunity to design and implement NFS programs, as
part of an overall State Clean Water Strategy (SCVS) which unifies
and integrates the States' entire approach to water quality pro-
tection and clean-up. Building on existing State water pollution
control programs and activities, SCVS's may be developed in a three
step process: completing a comprehensive assessment of impaired or
threatened waters; targeting or identifying the sequence for protect-
ing, water resources; and developing strategic management plans. In
.the area of assessments, the SCVS encourages States to consider com-
bining the similar assessment requirements mandated under the Clean
Water Act (CVA) for nonpoint sources (section 319), lakes (section
314), estuaries (section 320), and surface water toxics (section
30^(1)). The advantages of combining these assessment are to: help
States identify geographical problems and crossmedia "hot spots";
make data gaps more apparent; encourage non-traditional, amIti.-agency
coordination and cooperation; and form the basis for comprehensive
pollution control efforts.
Both the SCVS process and the NPS Guidance call for identifying the
sequence for protecting water resources. Neither the SCVS nor the
NPS Guidance provide a prescriptive ranking and targeting procedure
that States oust follow. Rather they provide a general framework
and a set of targeting criteria that-States should consider during \
the targeting stage of the process. As a practical matter, especially
in the NPS area, States will probably find it both useful and nec
to carve out a subset of work for concerted action within the multi-year
timeframe ojL.the SCVS. The guiding principle for this step is to
- - maximize 'environmental benefit by devoting-resources and efforts to
water resources in a priority order that recognizes the values of.the
waterbody in question, the benefits to be realized from various control
actions and the controllability of the problem(s).
Again, both the SCVS and the NPS Guidance call for the development of
multi-year strategic plans. Such multi-year strategic plans provide
the connection between the strategic direction and the. State's annual
work plans for carrying out the work over a multi-year period. The
scope of a management plan depends upon whether the State, elects to
use a comprehensive, integrated approach or a more traditional pro-
grammatic approach. So long as the CVA requirements for specific
manafesMat plans (nonpoint source, Clean Lakes, estuaries) are met,
the State may submit either one comprehensive management plan or
multiple plans covering each of its program areas.
-------
D. Definition of Nonpolnt Source Pollution
For the purpose of implementing the NFS provisions in the CWA-, NFS
pollution is defined as follows:
Nonpoi'nt Source (NFS) Pollution: NFS pollution.is caused by diffuse
sources that are'not regulated as point sources and normally is associated
with agricultural, silvicultural and urban runoff, runoff from
construction activities, etc. Such pollution results in the human-made or
human"induced alteration of the chemical, physical, biological, and
radiological integrity of water. In practical terms, nonpoint source
pollution does not result .from a discharge at a specific, single location
(such as a single pipe) but generally results, from land runoff,
precipitation, atmospheric deposition, or percolation. It must
be kept in raind that this definition is necessarily general; legal and
regulatory decisions have sometimes resulted .in certain sources being
assigned to either the point or nonpoint source categories because of
considerations c'ther than their manner of discharge. For ex-ample,
irrigation return flows are designated as "nonpoint sources" by section
402(1) of the Clean Water Act, even though the discharge is through a
discrete conveyance.
E. Program Inter-relationships
With the WQA, States now have additional support and direction for
comprehensive implementation of NFS controls. EPA will encourage
States to develop NFS programs which build upon related programs
such as Clean Lakes, Estuaries,.Stormwater Permits, Ground Water,
Toxics Controls, Statn Revolving Funds, and Wetlands; and complement .
and increase the effectiveness of State and local NFS programs already
underway. In'addition", EPA will encourage States to coordinate their .
NFS programs with other Federal agencies. For example, USDA's Conser-
vation Reserve and Conservation Compliance Programs play an important
role in the implement*tion of best management practices to reduce
agricultural NFS pollution. • . ,
-------
II. IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH
This section addresses the basic NP.S requirements from section 319 of
the Clean Water Act *.s amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987. States
- . are encouraged to integrate these section 319 items through their State '
Clean Water Strategies into their existing processes and resultant docu1
ments (specifically sections 303(e), 106, 305(b), and water quality
management plans).*
A. Development of State Assessment Reports
1. Introduction
State Assessment Reports must describe the nature, extent and
effect of NFS water pollution, the causes of such pollution, and
programs and methods used for controlling this pollution.
In order to avoid duplication and to conserve resources, States should
use their 1988 State 305(b) Reports to meet the requirements of State
'Assessment Reports. -At a minimum, States should use their 1988
State 305(b) Reports which are due by April 1, 1988 as the formal
mechanism for reporting the list of waters impacted by NFS pollution
and the NFS categories or sources contributing to. these impacts
(items .2(A) and 2(B) below). This list of impacted waters may be
updated at any time and should be updated for subsequent State 305(b)
Reports. Other assessment items required by section 319 (items 2(C)
and 2(D> below) may be included in State 305(b) Reports as well but
must be submitted no later than August 4, 1988.. -.
EPA guidance for preparing 1988 State 305(b) Reports identifies the
NFS information to "be included in the 305(b) Reports for State
Assessment Reports (See US EPA, Office of Water Regulations and
S tandards. Guidelines for the Preparation of the 1968 State Water.
Quality Assessment 305(b) Report. April 1, 1987). This section 319
guidance provides a more detailed discussion of the requirements
for State Assessment Reports including EPA approval criteria.
2. State Assessment Report Requirements
State Assessment Reports shall include the following four categories
of information: ' ...
(A) identification of navigable waters within the State which, without
Additional action to control nonpoint sources of pollution,
cannot reasonably be expected to attain or maintain applicable
water quality standards or the goals and requirements of the
Act;
(B) identification of categories and subcategories of nonpoint sources
or, where appropriate, particular nonpoint sources which add
• significant pollution to each portion of the navigable waters
identified under subparagraph (A) in amounts which contribute
to such portion not meeting such water quality standards or
such goals and requirements;
-------
(C) description of the process, including intergovernmental
coordination and public participation, for (i) identifying
best management practices and measures to control each category
and subcategory of nonpoint sources and, where appropriate,
particular nonpoint sources identified under subparagraph (B)
and (ii) for reducing, to the maximum extent practicable, the
level of pollution resulting from such category, subcategory,
or source; and
(0) description of State and local programs for controlling pollution
added from nonpoint sources to, and improving the quality of,
• . each such portion of the navigable waters, including but not
liaited to those programs which will receive Federal assistance
under subsection (h) and (i).
3, Explanation
Sequence - The Assessment Report should be submitted before or
concurrently with the State Management Program.
Use Available Information - The Act specifically encourages the
use of existing reports and information for State Assessment Re-
ports in recognition of. the timing required by the Act.* Assess-
ment data, however, should be reviewed, updated and refined, as
appropriate. The State Assessment Report should clearly identify
navigable waters where available information does not support
reliable assessment, and provide a strategy and timetable for
completing the assessment of these navigable waters.
Process - An open assessment process is to be used to identify NFS
water quality problem areas. All those with an interest in water
quality should be involved in developing the Statewide list of NFS
problem areas. Groups and agencies with interests in fish and
wildlife, recreation, natural resources, agriculture, forestry,
drinking water, etc. should be consulted in the process of identi-
fying such areas. Representatives of environmental groups, indus-
try, regional planning organizations, local governments and the pub-
lic should also participate. This process will help assure that all
available data from diverse agencies and organizations is included,
and that gaps in the data are identified and can be remedied for
future decisions and actions.
What Constitutes NPS-Impacted Waters? - Consistent with the 305(b)
reporting requirements, States should report on assessed waters
for which the State is able to make a judgment about the degree to
which the designated use.J.s supported. The 1988 305(b) Guidelines
establish two levels of assessment, one reflecting conclusions based
on ambient monitoring data and the other based on other information.
The first level is "monitored" waters in which the assessment
is based on.current site-specific ambient data i.e., the ambient'
monitoring data are less than five years old. The second level is
"evaluated" waters in which the assessment is based on information
other than current site-specific ambient data, such as data on
sources of pollution, predictive modeling, fishery surveys, citi-
-------
zen complaints and ambient data which are older than five years.
In the NFS area, best professional judgment and various evaluation
techniques will play an important role. When using more subjective
evaluation methods, EPA expects that borderline cases will be included,
in the list of waters impacted by NFS pollution.
The Assessment Report should include all navigable waters within
the State which exhibit water-quality limiting NFS problems (see
Appendix A for definition of navigable waters and waters of the
U.S.). The Assessment should also indicate the total sizes of
waters in the State by waterfaody type (i.e., miles of rivers and
acres of lakes, estuaries and wetlands) that fully support their.
designated uses and the total sizes of State waters not assessed.
(This information should be available from State 305(b) Reports.)
High quality waters (as defined in section 131.12 (a)(2) of the
Water Quality Standards Regulation] in-the State where potential
degradation from nonpoint sources due to proposed or actual changes
in cultural activities is a threat, should also be identified. .
States should develop their assessments on a watershed-by-watershed
ba'sis. States should not focus only on waters immediately adjacent
to NFS problems, but should also consider downstream segments, lakes
and estuaries where NFS pollutants may accumulate and cause water
degradation.
i
Section 305(b) Waterbodv System(WBS) - A new data management system,
the WBS, is being developed to manage much of the watarbody-specific,
quantitative information concerning surface water quality and sources
of pollution reported by States in their 30S(b) submissions. States
should submit the waterbody-specific information required in the
State NFS Assessment (i.e., the list of waters.impacted by NFS
pollution and the categories of sources of NFS pollution for each
of. these water-bodies) in a written form in a format consistent with
the WBS (preferably using WBS input forms). EPA will work through
contractors to get the data into the WBS during the summer of 1983.
Use of the actual WBS computer system by the States is optional in
FY 1988. States should consult the Guidelines for the Preparation
of the 1988 305(b) Report and the WBS Users Manual for-guidance in
developing and formatting their information.
Wetlands - States should include any information on known1 wetlands
impacted by nonpoint sources in their NFS Assessment Report.
Ground Water - States should include information on any known or
suspected ground-water problems caused by nonpoint sources in their
NFS.Assessment Report. Any ground-water' information included in
a State's Assessment Report should be consistent with the State's
ground-water protection strategies. States are encouraged to
refer to EPA's Office of Ground-Water Protection's guidance on the -
Wellhead Protection Program which contains a section on "source
identification" (US EPA,. Office of Ground-Water Protection. Guidance
for Applicants for State Wellhead Protection Program Assistance
Funds Under the Safe Drinking Water Act. June 1987, p. 21).
-------
Landownership - States should identify water 'quality problems due to
NFS pollution from all lands regardless of landownership (Federal/
State/local/privite).
Categories and Subcategories - The categories, subcategories or
sources of NFS pollution which add pollution to'the NFS-impacted
waters included in the Assessment should be identified. Categories
should be identified- for each .listed waterbody. Particular nonpdint
sources or specific sources which add pollution to an identified
waterbody should also be identified and reported where known. States
should use the computer codes established for the major NFS pollution,
categories and subcategories listed in Appendix B for reporting in .
their State Assessment Reports. For a State's own implementation
purposes, it may need to further subdivide the major categories and
subcategories of NFS pollution, or may want to define its nonpoint
sources differently. If a State identifies an entirely new category
of nonpoint sources, it should contact EPA (Monitoring and Data
Support Division, WH-553, Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
Office of Water, Washington, DC 20460) to have a new computer code
assigned to the source.
Process for Defining BMPs - The Assessment Report must describe
the process, including intergovernmental coordination and public
participation, used for identifying best management practices!
This coordination/public participation requirement recognizes -that
NFS management often requires the coordination of numerous agencies
and organizations which may be affected by NFS management decisions.
States are required to describe the process for identifying BMPs in
their Assessment Reports. In the Management Program, States must
include more details on BMPs including lists of BMPs which are-
generally considered appropriate for the various categories and
subcategories of NFS pollution.
Identification of NFS Programs - The Assessment Report must describe
State and local programs to be used in the implementation of State
NFS management .programs [including programs for which the State
intends to seek funding under sections 319(h) and (i)j. This will
serve as a cataloging of existing tools and will help identify
the need to develop new and additional tools and approaches to NFS
control as part of State NFS Management Programs. Section 319
requires States to describe their NFS programs in both their Assess-
ment Report and State Management Program. This is duplicative, but
EPA will expect greater detail to be provided in the Management
Program.
Over the years, many States have developed highly successful and
innovative NFS control programs including low-interest loans to
farmers, assistance to landowners.or landusers in targeted water-
sheds, statewide regulation of erosion from construction sites and
urban stormwater runoff, forest practice requirements and others.
-------
New programs are expected to go well beyond existing programs and
should build on and strengthen the solid successes developed by the
- States over the years.
Public Notice and Opportunity for Public Comment - The State must
provide public notice of the availability of the State's Assessment-
Report for public review and provide an opportunity for public
comment prior to submittal to EPA.
Transmittal of Reports - States are encouraged to submit drafts
of their Assessment Reports to Regional NFS Coordinators prior to
formal submission. Copies of final Assessment Reports submitted -
as a part of State 305(b) Report's should be submitted to Regional
305(b) Coordinators. Three copies should be submitted to NFS
Coordinators.
If Assessment Reports are completed prior to submission of 1968
305(b) Reports, three copies of the Assessment Report should be
submitted to Regional NFS Coordinators. States should incorporate
their NFS Assessment information in their "1988 305(b) Reports which
' are due by April 1, 198.8.
At a minimum, States should use their 1988 State 305(b) Reports to
identify the list of waters impacted by NFS pollution and the NFS
categories or sources contributing to this impact. The other two
Assessment items required by section 319 (process for identifying
BMPs and description of State/local NFS programs) -may be included
in State 305(b) Reports as well but must be submitted no later
than August 4, 1988.
4. Criteria for Approved of State Assessment Reports
Following are the criteria that EPA will use in evaluating a State's
Assessment Report: • • •
(A) Navigable waters impacted by nonpoint sources
[section 319(a)(1)(A)) '
o Has available Statewide information regarding the State's
NFS problems been analyzed and summarized in.the Assessment
Report including any available information developed pur-
suant to sections 208, 303(el, 304(f), 305(b), 314J and 320,
and NFS information prepared for America's Clean Waters.
The States' Nonpoint Source Assessment 1985. Association of
State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators?
o Has the list of waters impacted or threatened by NFS pollution
and the pollution categories or sources contributing to
this impact been integrated with the State's 30S(b) Report
consistent with the EFA Guidelines?
o Has the assessment basis (i.e., monitored or evaluated) for .
reported waters been identified?
-------
- o Have the specific waterbodies impacted or threatened by NFS
pollution and the NFS pollution categories or sources contri-
buting to this impact been identified and have such data
been provided in a compatible format'' for inclusion in the
305(b) Waterbody System data base (use of the actual Waterbody .
computer system will be optional in FY 1988)?
o Has the -list of waters impacted or threatened by NFS pollution
been reported on a watershed-by-watershed basis?
o Have interstate/international waters been considered?
o If all navigable waters have not been completely assessed,
does the State have a strategy and expeditious timetable
for improving the quality of its assessment?
(B) Categories of nonpoint sources impacting State waters
(section 319(a)(l)(B)]
o Has the State specifically identified the categories and
subcategories or sources of NFS pollution for each of the
impacted or threatened navigable waters identified above?
(C) Intergovernmental coordination and public participation for
identifying BMPs [section 319(a)(1)(C)}
o Were groups and agencies with water quality and resource
interests provided an opportunity to review proposed best
management practices for the categories and subcategories
of nonpoint sources?
(D) Identification of existing State and local NFS control programs
[section 319(a)(1)(D)]
o Has the State provided a comprehensive summary of all existing
State and local NFS control programs and explained how the
new assistance provided by section 319(h) and (i) will help
support its NFS programs?
o Has there been adequate consideration of the development of
the listings of programs with local, State and Federal agencies?
(E) Public notice and opportunity for public comment [section 319(a)(l)]
o Have other groups with water quality and resource interests
been actively involved in the process of defining the NFS
water quality problem areas, identifying the sources impacting
or threatening these waters, and identifying BMPs e.g., have
fish and wildlife, recreational, agricultural, forestry,
drinking water, and wetland protection agencies, etc., partici-
pated in developing the Assessment?
o Has the State issued .a public notice on the availability of
the State Assessment Report for public review and provided an
-------
opportunity for public comment prior to submitting the Report
to EPA? :
Does the review process generally conform to 40 CFR 25 for
public participation? States have the flexibility to design
whatever type of public participation strategy they wish -
including workshops, advisory groups and public hearings, but
the administration of the chosen activities should be in
accordance with the procedures outlined in 40 CFR 25.
-------
B. Development of State Management Programs .
1. Introduction
State Management Programs should provide an overview of a State's
NFS programs 'as well as a summary of.what the State intends to
accomplish in the next four fiscal years beginning after the date
of program submission. EPA trusts that development of State Manage-
ment Programs will help States move toward viable, long-range NFS
management programs.
State Management Programs should be submitted by the Governor of each
State, for that State or in combination with adjacent States, after"
notice and opportunity for public comment. State Management Programs
should be submitted to the appropriate Regional NFS Coordinator by
August 4, 1988.
While the Assessment Report identifies the overall dimensions of
the State's NFS water quality problems, a State will probably fi'nd
it both useful and necessary to carve out a subset of these waters
in its State Management Program for concerted action on a watershed-
by-watershed basis over the next four years. Such targeting will
provide the greatest opportunity for achieving visible water quality
improvements in the short run. In addition, States should develop
Statewide program approaches to address NFS problems such as con-
struction erosion, urban stormwater runoff from developing areas,
forestry practices, or other types of NFS problems.
States are encouraged to target or identify the sequence for
protecting their water resources based on a comparative evaluation
of the State's waters. The guiding principles in evaluating a State's
waters are to maximize environmental benefit by devoting resources
and efforts to water resources in a priority order that recognizes
the values of the waterbody in question, the benefits to be realized
from various control actions (including evidence of local public
interest and support), and the controllability of the problem(s).
States should consider the following factors in targeting NFS problem
areas:
o What waterbodies are most valuable from various perspectives--
aquatic habitat, recreation, and water supply for example?
o What waterbodies are subject to adverse effects from both
pollution and aquatic habitat destruction (wetlands), and can
be impacted by water programs?
o What tools are available to address the waterbodies identified?
o What areas are most likely to be improved through governmental
action? • . .
o Which problems are most amenable to the available tools and controls?
-------
o What is the degree of public support (local or statewide) to
protect a particular aquatic resource?
o How willing are other governmental -agencies to take steps to
use their tools and' resources to help address the problem?
o , Where would-"combined actions" offer the greatest benefit
relative to the value of the aquatic resource?
States are encouraged to refer to an EPA Office of Water Regulations
and Standards' technical publication called Setting Priorities: The
Keyto Nonpoint Source Pollution Control for more details on effective
NFS targeting approaches (US EPA. Office of Water Regulations and
Standards,. Setting Priorities: The Key to Nonpoint Source Pollution
Control. July 1987). The NFS targeting strategy, as presented in
this document, complements the targeting concept in the State Clean
Water Strategy Guidance; more specifically, it is intended to-present
successful State approaches to targeting NFS water pollution control
problems.
States should, where appropriate, supplement the funding of existing
NPS projects in order to demonstrate the benefits of NFS projects
within the four year program.
The State Management Program needs to be balanced between the priority
problems the State identifies and implementation of Statewide NPS
programs. Examples of Statewide NPS programs include Statewide
regulatiors for forestry, grazing, or construction erosion control,
or Statewide educational programs aimed at protecting water resources
from NPS Impacts. Targeted water quality projects and Statewide
programs should be directed at either improving degraded water quality
or preventing NPS impacts in high quality waters.
2. State Management Program Requirements
State Mar.agement Programs shall include the following six categories
of infornation:
(A) best management practices and measures which will be used
to reduce pollutant loadings resulting from each category,
subcategory, or particular nonpoint source designated in the
State's Assessment Report, taking into account the impact of
the practice on ground-water quality.
(B) programs (including, as appropriate, nonregulatory or
regulatory programs for enforcement, technical assistance,
financial assistance, education, training, technology transfer,
and. demonstration projects) to achieve implementation of the
best management practices designated under subparagraph (A).
(C) a schedule containing annual milestones for (i) utilization of
the program implementation methods identified in subpara-
graph (B), and (ii) implementation of the the best management
practices identified in subparagraph (A) by the categories,
-------
subcategories, or particular nonpoint sources designated in the
State's Assessment Report. Such schedule shall provide for
utilization of the best management practices at the earliest
practicable date.
(D) a certification by the attorney general of the State or States
(or -the chie'f attorney of any State water pollution control
agency which has independent legal counsel) that'the. laws of
the State or States, as the case may be, provide adequate
authority to implement such management program or, if there is
not adequate authority,, a list of such additional authorities
as will be necessary to implement such management program and a
schedule and commitment by the State or States to seek such
additional' authorities as expeditiously as practicable.
(£) sources of Federal and other assistance and funding [other than
assistance provided under subsections (h) and (i)j which will be.
available in each of such fiscal years for supporting imple-
mentation of such practices and measures and the purposes for
which such assistance will be used in each of such fiscal years.
(F)' the Federal financial assistance programs and Federal development
projects for which the State will review individual assistance
applications or development projects for their effect on water
quality pursuant to the procedures set forth in Executive Order
12372 as in effect on September 17, 1983, to determine whether
such assistance applications or development projects would be
consistent with the program prepared under this subsection; for
the purposes of this subparagraph, identification shall not
be limited t.o the assistance programs or development projects
subject to Executive Order 12372 but may include any programs
listed in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
which may have an effect on the purposes and objectives of the .
State's nonpoint source pollution management program.
3. Explanation
As required by the Act; States should develop Management Programs
to the maximum extent practicable on a watershed-by-watershed basis.
State NFS Management Programs should focus geographically on NFS
priority areas identified through a comparative evaluation o-f the
State's waters. Management strategies should comprehensively address
the NFS problems in the watersheds targeted for implementation,
regardless of landownership (Federal/State/local/private). In
addition, States should develop Statewide program approaches to
address various types of nonpoint sources.
The Act requires six principal categories of information to be
included in State NFS Management Programs and each category as well
as other items are .discussed below:
Best Management Practices (BMPs) - State programs must identify the
SMPs w"hich-.will be used to reduce pollution from each of the categor-
ies or subcategories of NFS pollution, taking into account the
-------
impact of the proposed practices on ground-water quality.
States are required to consider the impact of best management
practices on ground water. This is due,to the intimate hydrologic
relationship that often exists between surface and ground water,
and the possibility that measures taken to reduce contaminants in
surface water runoff may increase transport of these contaminants
to ground water.
The range of detail regarding BMPs in State subtaittals may vary
froo lists of BMPs which are generally considered appropriate for
the various categories and subcategories of NFS pollution to detailed
watershed plans. However, grant applications which seek support
for specific demonstration watershed projects under sections 319
or 205(j)(5) should contain more specific information on the types
and amount of BMPs needed for particular projects (see section on
Demonstration Projects under Grant Application Requirements).,
NPS Programs - States must identify the nonregulatory and regulatory
programs including enforcement, technical assistance, financial
assistance, education, training, technology transfer, demonstration
projects and monitoring/evaluation to assist in the development and
implementation of BMPs. The lead and cooperating agencies for
carrying out these programs should be identified and their responsi-
bilities clearly identified.
Section 319(h)(7) states that Federal funds from this section
may be used for financial assistance to individuals only to the ex-
tent that such assistance "is related to the costs of "demonstration
projects." The Conference Report accompanying the Act (Report
99-1004) explains the limitations regarding "demonstration pro 1ects:"
States may use Federal funds authorized by the bill for
financial assistance to individuals only insofar as the
assistance is related to costs of implementing demonstra-
tion projects. Federal funds are not to be used as &
general subsidy or for general cost sharing to support
implementation of best management practices. However, a
State is not precluded from using or directing other
funds for cost sharing or other incentive programs if.it
chooses. The term "demonstration projects" includes1pro-
jects designed to educate individuals as to the use of
best management practices and to demonstrate their feasi-
bility and utility as well as research projects to estab-
lish the cost effectiveness of particular BMPs.
Schedule - State programs will include a schedule containing annual
milestones for the four year program. Milestones built into the four
year program will provide an opportunity to gauge effectiveness of
programs and to make needed mid-course corrections. Annual work
programs included in grant applications must include commitments to
meet the four year Management Program. Examples of milestones in-
clude: anticipated improvements in water quality, water use or achieve-
ment of water quality standards; numbers and types of BMPs implemented;
-------
reports completed; NFS-related laws passed; and NFS programs established.
Certification of Adequacy ofState Laws '- The State must certify
that existing State laws are adequate to carry out the proposed pro-
gram or the .Management Program must contain a stated intent to seek.
additional needed authority. If additional legal authority is needed.,
the schedule for'seeking such authority should be adequately expeditious
to al-low implementation within the four-year Management Program.
Funding Sources - The Management Program should identify sources of
Federal and other assistance and funding other than that provided
by sections 319(h) and (i) which will be used to carry out the
State's NFS Management Program in each of the four fiscal years.
Federal Consistency - State Management Programs should identify any
individual Federal financial assistance programs1 or Federal devel-
opment projects to be reviewed by the State for their consistency
with its proposed State NFS Management Program. According to the
Congressional Record on January 14, 1987, this requirement is based
on Executive Order 12372, as in effect on September 17, 1983*, which
... replaces OMB Circular A-95 and establishes procedures by
which State authorities may comment upon applications for
Federal assistance and Federal development projects to assure
that the federally supported activities and projects are con-
sistent with State needs and objectives. This bill assures
that the provisions of the Executive order, as in effect on
September 17, 1983, will be applicable to the State's implemen-
tation of this review process, with respect to its nonpoint
source management program, regardless of any subsequent revisions
of the Executive order. The bill also allows States to designate
any Federal assistance program or development project listed
in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, rather
than just those programs and projects subject to the current
Executive Order 12372. The purpose of this provision is to
allow the States to review any Federal program or project
that the State determines needs to be reviewed.for consistency
with its nonpoint management program. This provision builds
upon established procedures for State review of Federal
activities. It will provide the States with an important tool
to assure that proposed Federal assistance and development
projects are implemented in a manner which the State deems
consistent with its nonpoint source pollution management program.
Executive Order 12372 titled "Intergovernmental Review of Federal
Programs" was issued July 14, 1932. This Executive Order-was . -.
subsequently amended on April 8, 1983 by Executive Order 12616 also
titled "intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs." Thus, the
reference to the "Executive Order 12372, as in effect on September 17,
1983," includes the amendments added by Executive Order 12416.
-------
The Administrator is required to transmit to the Office of Management
and Budget and appropriate Federal agencies a list of the assistance
programs and development projects which each State has identified
for review pursuant to the procedures set forth in Executive Order
12372, as in effect on September 17, 1983. Beginning no later'than .
6.0 days thereafter each Federal agency is required .to amend applicable
regulations so'that individual assistance applications and projects
for the identified programs and development projects are submitted
for State review. In addition, the appropriate agencies and depart-
ments of the Federal Government are required to accomodate, according
to the requirements and definitions of the Executive Order, concerns
the State may express about consistency of such applications or
projects with the State's NFS Management Program.
(Note: More detailed information on how to carry out the Federal
consistency provisions is currently being developed.)
Public Notice and Opportunity for Public Comment - States should
actively involve other groups with water quality and resource
interests in the development of State Management Programs. In
addition, the State shall provide a public notice on the availability
of the State's Management Program for public review and must provide
an opportunity for public comment prior to -submittal to EPA. Also,
within ten days of receipt of a specific 'Management Program, the
appropriate EPA Regional Office will provide public notice that they
have received such Management Program.
4. Criteria for Approval of State Management Programs
Following are the criteria that EPA will use in evaluating a State's,
Management Program:
(A) Identification of BMPs [section 319(b)(2)(A)J
o Are appropriate NFS BMPs identified for each of the
categories and subcategories of nonpoint sources identified
in the State's Assessment Report?
6 Has the impact of these BMPs on ground-water quality
been considered?
(B) Identification of needed implementation programs
: [section 319(b)(2HB)]
o Are the implementation programs (i.e., education,
technical/financial assistance, enforcement, etc.) to be
used identified?
o Are the .lead and cooperating agencies responsible for
the State's NFS programs identified and are their
responsibilities clearly identified?
o Are implementation programs developed on a watershed-by-
watershed basis, to the extent practicable (there is
-------
recognition that Statewide program approaches are needed
to address certain NFS problems)?
o If the NFS programs include financial assistance to
individuals (cost-sharing), are the Federal 319(h) costs
related only to supporting the costs of demonstration
projects,." as required by section 319(h)(7)?
(C) Implementation milestones [section 319(b)(2)(C)]
o Have milestones been scheduled during the four year
program to allow for implementation, evaluation of program
effectiveness and any necessary raid-course corrections?
For example, have goals been established.for individual
watersheds regarding how many BHPs will be implemented by
what .date or what water quality improvements are expected,
or has a schedule been established for the development of-
certa.ln NFS regulations?
(D) Certification of the attorney general of adequate State
authority ['section 319(b)(2)(D) ]
o If a State's authorities are not adequate, is there a schedule
for obtaining adequate authority to support needed implementa-
tion within the timeframe of the four year section 319 program?
(E) Source; of Federal and other assistance and funding
(section 319(b)(2)(E)]
o Does the Management Program explain how State and local funds,
oth-iir related EPA programs (other than 319(h) and (i)], and
oth
-------
Has the State issued a public notice on the availability of
the State Management Program for public review and provided
an opportunity for public comment prior to submitting the
Report to EPA?
-------
C. Administrative and Other Provisions
1- Deadline for Approval/Partial Approval
The NFS Assessment Report and Management Program should be
submitted to the appropriate EPA Regional Office no later than
August 4, 1988. The Regional Administrator must either approve
or disapprove a State's Assessment Report or Management Program
not later than 180 days after the date of submittal. The Regional
Administrator must approve the Assessment Report in its entirety
.but may approve a portion of a Management Program. These items .
may be approved separately or concurrently.
If the Regional Administrator does not disapprove an Assessment
Report, Management Program, or portion of a Management Program
in such 180 day period, such Assessment Report, Management
Program or portion of a Management Program shall be deemed
approved for the purposes of section 319.
2. Procedure for Disapproval
The Act provides that, after notice and opportunity.for public
comment and consultation with appropriate Federal and State
agencies and other interested persons, the Regional Adminis-
trator may disapprove a State's Assessment Report and/or
Management Program. Criteria for disapproval include:
(A) the proposed Assessment Report and Management Program
or any portion thereof does not meet the requirements
of subsections (a)(l) and (b)(2) of section 319, re-
spectively, or is not likely to satisfy, in whole or.
in part, the goals and requirements of this Act;-
(B) adequate'authority does not exist, or adequate resources
are not available, to implement such program or portion;
(C) the schedule for implementing such program or portion
is not sufficiently expeditious; or
(D) the practices and measures proposed in such program
or portion are not adequate to reduce the level of
pollution in navigable waters in the State resulting
from nonpoint sources and to improve the quality of
navigable waters in the State.
If any such determinations are made, the Regional Administrator
shall then, within 180 days of the receipt of the proposed
Assessment or Program, notify the State of any revisions or
modifications necessary to obtain approval. The State shall
thereupon have an additional three months to submit its revised
Assessment or Management Program and the Regional Administrator
shall approve or disapprove such revised submittals within
three months of receipt.
-------
3. Which Agency is to Serve as tfie Lead for the 319 Program
States should identify one State agency to serve as the lead
agency for the section 319 program. Given the diversity of
nonpoint pollution sources, EPA believes that State water
quality agencies are generally in the best position to carry
out the overall NFS assessment and program development require-
ments of section 319. However, a Governor, in consultation
with the appropriate EPA Regional Administrator, may designate
an agency other than the State water quality agency to serve _
as the lead in developing the State's NPS program. In such -
cases, the proposed agency must have the capability to develop
both a comprehensive NPS water quality assessment and NPS
management program. In any case, the Governor's designee will
ultimately be the recipient of section 205(j)(5) or 319 NPS grants,
As a -practical matter, once a State's overall NPS program-is
approved by the EPA Regional Administrator, numerous agencies
will likely be involved in the actual implementation of specific
NPS water pollution control programs. For example, State water
quality, natural resources, soil conservation, drinking water
and other agencies, as well as Federal, local and areawide
agencies will be involved. We expect the lead NPS agency to
submit consolidated section 205(j)(5) or 319 grants which the
lead State NPS agency will then allocate as appropriate, probably
through State memoranda of understanding, among its implementing
agencies.
4. Water Quality Management Plan Updates
States may incorporate their NPS Assessment and Management
Programs into their, water quality management (WQM) plan or
areawide waste treatment management plan developed and updated
in accordance with the provisions of section 205(j), 208, and
303 of the Act, 40 CFR Part 130 (the Water .Quality Planning and
Management regulation), and State requirements- The NPS Assess-
ment and Management Program may be included in the State's WQM
Plan or referenced as part of the WQM plan if contained in
separate documents.
5. States Electing Not to Submit Assessment Reports
If tL Governor of a State elects not to submit an Assessment
Report by the August 4, 1988 deadline, the Regional Administrator
shall, within 30 months after the date of enactment of the.
amendments establishing section 319, prepare for such State a
Report which makes the identifications that are required, by
law and the guidance, for the State Assessment Report." Upon
completion of this requirement and providing notice and oppor-
tunity to comment, EPA will report to Congress on this action.
-------
8- Local Agency Submitter of Management Program
If a State elects not to submit a Management Program or if the
Regional Administrator does not approve such a Management Program,
a local public agency or organization which has expertise in,
and authority to control, NFS pollution may, with State approval,
submit a Management Program. Such agency or organization must
be of "sufficient.geographic size" as determined by the Regional.
Administrator and may request technical assistance from EPA in
the development of such Management Program.
After development of such Management Program, such agency or
organization shall submit the Management Program through the State
to the appropriate Regional Administrator. If the program is
approved, such agency or organization shall be eligible to receive
financial assistance under section 319(h) for implementation of
the Management Program. Such financial assistance shall be subject
to the same terms and conditions as assistance provided to a State
under section 3l9(h), including that both an Assessment Report and
Management Program must be completed, prior to award of a grant
under section 319(h).
7. Annual Reports by States and Reports to Congress
(A) Annual State Reports Required'- Starting November 1, 1987,
and each September 1 thereafter, each State will report to
its respective EPA Regional Office, concerning:
. (1) the amount, purpose and utilization of grants received
by the State under subsections 319(h) and (i), 205(j)(S),
and 201(g)(l); and funds used under 603(c)(2);
(2) its progress in meeting milestones detailed in its
Management Program; and
(3) to the extent that appropriate information is available,
reductions in nonpoint source pollutant loading and im-
provements in water quality for those waters reported in
the State's Assessment Report.
The Annual Reports will be consolidated by the Regions and
forwarded to EPA Headquarters no later than November 20 in -
1987 and in the following years by September 20.
The first Annual Report due November 1, 1987 should consist
of.a letter from the State regarding the status of its NFS
program. For example, the letter should note when and if
the State expects to submit an Assessment Report and Manage-
ment Program, and the status of NPS activities supported
with 205(j)(5) funds.
-------
EPA Annual Report Required - The Administrator will
consolidate, edit and add to State and Regional reports
and submit to Congress his report by January 1, 1988, and
each January 1 thereafter, on the activities and programs'
implemented under section 319 and the progress made in "
reducing NFS water pollution and improving the quality of
affected waters.
FinalReport - The Administrator's report of January 1,
1990 is referred to in the Act as the "Final Report." -
In this report the Congress is asking for an evaluation of
the activities carried out to that date under section 319.
[The filing of the 1989-90 "Final Report" does not change
the requirement for subsequent annual reports in the manner
and fashion of the '87-'88 reports called for by paragraphs
(A) and (B), above.J
Specifically, States will report the following information
in the September 1, 1969 submittal, in addition to that
information-asked for under subparagraph (A) above:
'1 x the management programs implemented by the State by
types and amount of affected waters, categories and
subcategories of rionpoint sources, and types of best
management practices being implemented;
the experiences of the State in adhering to schedules
and implementing best management practices;
*
what further actions need to be taken to attain and
maintain in NFS targeted waters (i) applicable water
quality standards, and (ii) the goals and require*
ments of the Act;
(4) recommendations concerning needed future programs
(including enforcement programs) for controlling
pollution from nonpoint sources; and
(5) programs and activities of departments, agencies and
instrumentalities of the United States which are
inconsistent with the State's Management Program and
recommended modifications so that such activities and
programs would become consistent with and assist the
States in implementation of their Management Program.
[Note: Separate technical information is being developed to
provide a format for preparation of the State Annual Reports
and the Final Report. This format would allow for reporting
of progress in specific NFS projects and reductions in NFS
loadings and related water quality improvements.)
(2)
(3)
-------
8. Cooperation Requirement
States should seek the cooperative involvement of regional
. planning agencies, local governments, and other public and
private agencies and organizations in the development of their
Assessment Report and Management Program. Section 319(c)(l)
specifically requires the Assessment Report and Management
Program
:' ...be developed in cooperation with local, substate,
regional, and interstate entities which are actively -
planning for the implementation of nonpoint source
pollution controls and have either been certified by
the Administrator in accordance with section 208, have
worked jointly with the State on water quality manage-
ment planning under section 205(j), or have been desig-
nated by the State legislative body or Governor as
water quality management planning agencies for their
geographic areas.
In addition, section 319(b)(3) requires States to the maximum
extent practicable to involve local public and private agencies
and organizations which have expertise in control of NFS pollu-
tion in the development and implementation of State Management
Programs.
9. Interstate Management Conference
If waters in a State are impaired by NPS pollution from another
State, the State may petition the Regional Administrator to
convene, and he shall-convene, a conference of the affected
States. If the Regional Administrator finds that waters in a
State are not-meeting standards because of NPS pollution origin-
ating in another State, EPA shall notify such State(s). The
Regional Administrator may, whether or not petitioned to do
so, convene a management conference between such States not
later than 180 days after giving notification. The purpose of
such conference shall be to develop an agreement to control
such interstate NPS pollution.
To the extent that States reach agreement through such a .
conference, the Management Programs of the States that tfre
parties to the agreement and contribute the NPS pollution will
be revised to reflect such agreement.
10, Indian Tribes
Section 518(f) establishes that not more than one-third of one
percent of the amount appropriated for any fiscal year under
section 319 may be used to make grants to Indian tribes. Indian
tribes must meet the requirements of section 319(h) as well as
meet the three criteria in section 518(e) of the Act in order
to receive such grants.
-------
11. Technical Assistance
Upon request of a State or a lo.cal public agency or organization,
EPA may provide technical assistance in carrying out the pro-
visions of section 319. This technical- assistance will be
provided (to the extent resources are available) by EPA Regional
NPS staff.in most instances with backup assistance from EPA
Headquarters' NPS staff.
Pursuant to section 319(e), EPA will collect and make available
through publications and other means information regarding _
management practices and implementation methods. For example,
information will be developed on the costs' and relative effi-
ciencies of best' management practices for reducing NPS pollution,.
and available data concerning the impact of best management
practices on water quality.
Major technical assistance activities planned for FY 1988 include:
providing assistance to the States in the development of Assess-
ment Reports and Management Programs; issuing a NPS monitoring
and evaluation guide; providing information on the effectiveness
and costs of best management practices; completing a stream
methodology started under the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program
for analyzing water quality effects of urban runoff; and
developing a methodology for incorporating nonpoint sources
into waste load allocations.
-------
Ill, GRANT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
Federal financial support is authorized from six new sections established
by the WQA to support activities related to NFS control. While each of
these funding sources is discussed separately below, and will generally
require a separate grant .application, States are.encouraged to develop
coordinated work programs using these.various funding sources. Grant
funding under each of these sections is subject to the availability of
appropriations.
A. Section 20b(j)(5)
This section of the Act provides a set-aside of up to 1% of each
State's construction grant allotment or a minimum of $100,000 to
be used'for developing a State's NFS Assessment Report and Management
Program (program development) and for implementing an approved
Management Program (implementation).
Grant Application Requirements - To use these funds, States need to
prepare a grant application which includes:
1. an EPA Form 5700-33 properly completed;
2. an EPA Form 5700-48 properly completed;
.3. a certification on the grant application that the requirements
of E.O. 12372 have been met;
4. a brief narrative statement explaining how the funds will be
used and how use of these funds will be coordinated with other
funds devoted to NPS activities;
5. a sec,tion-by-section description of each task, including
outputs, to be funded;
6. one table for evaluation and other purposes, listing:
(a) each of the tasks,
(b) the outputs to be accomplished, by each task,.
(c) funding for each task,
(d) the number of person-years devoted to each task, and
(e) a schedule of when outputs are to be completed; and
7. if needed, a statement assuring that the State will maintain
during the grant period its average annual level of expendi-
tures "for NPS activities for FY 1985 and FY 1986 and esta-
blishing such an expenditure level (see separate discussion
of maintenance of effort).
These requirements are in accordance with the Administrator's
Policy on Performance Based Assistance dated May 31, 1985.
The grant application/work program must be adequately integrated
and coordinated with other water quality management activities
-------
supported under CVA sections 106, 117, 201(g)(l), non-CMAG 205(g),
205(j)(l), 314, 319(h) and (i), 320, 603(c)(2), 604(b), and with
State matching or maintenance-of-effort funds all of which may be
contributing input to the NFS Assessment and Management Program.
In addition, grant..applications must also be integrated and coordi-
nated with ground-water and wetlands activities.
Match • 205(j)(5) funds are reserved "for the purpose of carrying
out section 319," i.e., to develop a State's NFS Assessment Report
and Management Program and to implement an approved Management
Program. The Senate Report 99-50 issued on May 14, 1985, states"
that section 205(j)(5) grants must meet the Federal/noa-Federal
share requirements. Section 319(h)(3) indicates that the Federal
share "of the cost incurred by the State in implementing such man-
agement program" (emphasis added) shall be matched. Therefore, no
match is required for 205(j)(5) funds which are used to develop" a
State's NFS Assessment and Mangagement Program. However, 205'(j)(5)
grant funds used for implementation of NFS activities identified in
the State's approved NFS Management Program must be matched. The
Federal share for such implementation activities shall not exceed
60%.
Use of 205(0(5) Funds and Award Mechanisms - Section 205(j)(5)
funds may not be awarded for NFS implementation activities until a
State's NFS Assessment Report and Management Program are approved.
After such approval, section 205(j)(5) funds may be used for imple-
menting approved State NFS Management Programs.
Section 205(j)(5) funds used for program development (developing
Assessment Reports and Management Programs) are to be awarded under
205(J)(5). Section 205(j)(5) funds used for implementing Management
Programs will be awarded under 319(h). Given these different award
mechanisms, EPA Regions will.award separate grants for 205(j)(5)
funds used for either of these two purposes i.e., States must submit
two separate grant applications. Section 205(j)(5) funds used for
implementation activities oust also meet other requirements (i.e.,.
match, maintenance of effort, etc.) which ar.e discussed below in
the section on "Other Restrictions and Requirements." .
Implementation Activities - In addressing the subject of implementa-.
tion, the Act calls for:
...an identification of programs (including, as appropri-
ate, nonregulatory or regulatory programs for enforcement,
technical assistance, financial assistance, education,
training, technology transfer, and demonstration projects)
to achieve implementation of best management practices...
Such activities, when included in a State's Management Program,
shall be considered eligible implementation activities for funding
under sections 205(j)(5) and 319(h). In addition, design of specific
best management practices (BMPs) and the provision of financial
assistance to individuals for the physical installation of BMPs
is eligible in the case of "demonstrations." Also, financial
-------
, assistance provided to municipalities and other public entities
is an eligible implementation activity.
Other Restrictions and Requirements - Generally, the restrictions
and.requirements of 319(h) in addition to match (e.g., the priority
considerations, maintenance of effort, restrictions on financial
assistance to individuals, availability for obligation, requirement
for annual reports, limitation on administrative costs and satis-
factory progress) apply to section 205(j)(S) funds used to support
implementation activities. When section 205(j)(5) grant funds
are used for program development, the restrictions and requirements
of. section 319(h) do not apply. For a more detailed discussion of
these restrictions and requirements, please see the following
section B of this guidance.
Obligation of 205(0(5) Funds - Section 205(j}(5) funds used for
program development may be obligated in the year in which they are
appropriated as well as in the following year, pursuant to secti'on
205(d). The availability for obligation provision of section
319(h)(6) applies to section 3l9(h)'as well as section 205(j)(5)
funds used for implementation, and/therefore, such funds must be
obligated in the year in which they are appropriated. EPA may
reallot to other States any funds not so obligated or may renego-
tiate with the State a schedule for use of the funds.
Demonstration Proiects - When section 205(j)(5) [or 319(h)j funds
are used for implementation of demonstration projects for specific
watersheds or geographic areas, implementation plans must be'
included in the work program/grant application. Implementation
plans should, at a minimum, include:
1. a description of the institutional responsibilities and
roles of all participating agencies, and an identification
of the lead agency responsible for administering the project;
2. an explanation of the purpose or objectives of the project
such as evaluating the effectiveness'of a particular best
management practice or achieving a particular water quality
goal in a watershed;
3. a watershed profile including an inventory of point and • •
nonpoint sources, as appropriate; and
4. the estimated cost of the project including the type, number
and cost of best management practices to be implemented in
the project area.
As a practical matter, States may not be able to provide a complete
implementation plan with their grant application. In such cases, the
grant application could be approved with a grant condition that such
an implementation plan be developed within a certain timeframe.
-------
State NotUsing 205COC5)Funds for NFS Control - States do not have to
use the 205(jX5) reserve for their NFS programs, although we encourage
them to do so. If a State chooses not to use a minimum of $100,000
of its reserve for NFS purposes, the difference between what is
used for NFS purposes and $100,000 will-be realloted to other States
as construction grant funds, pursuant to 40 CFR 35.155. Reserves
beyond the first $100,000 may be used for "other purposes under Title II
of the Act" i;~e., 'for construction of treatment works, for water quality
management planning activities, etc. In summary, it would be in the
interest of most States to use a minimum of $100,000 of their 205(j)(5)
reserve for developing and/or implementing their NFS Program.
B. Section* 319(h)
Grants under section 319(h) are to be used to implement State NFS
Management Programs. A discussion of eligible implementation acti-
vities is provided under the previous section of the guidance-
addressing 205(j)(5) grants.
Section 319ih)(2) provides that grant applications for section 319(h)
funds should include:
... an identification and description of the best management
practices and measures which the State proposes to assist.
encourage^ or require in such year with the Federal assistance
to be provided under the grant, (emphasis added)
Authorizations » Congress has authorized $70 million for FY 1988,
$100 million each for FY 1989 and FY 1990, and $130 million for FY
1991 for se-tion 319(h); except that for each of such fiscal years
.not to exceed $7,500,000 may be made available to carry out section
319(i). No one State is to receive more than 15%-of the funds appro-
priated under section 319(h) in any given year or more than $150,000
under section 319(i). These funds will not.be available until Congress
appropriates them.
Allocation of Funds - Funds appropriated for 319(h) would.'be
awarded to those States which have approved NFS Assessments and
Management Programs and have submitted specific grant applications. .
-NOTE-
Following is our basic concept for allocating available 319(h) funds.
Father guidance on the allocation will be developed once appropriated
funding levels are known.
A1location Concept - EPA's concept for establishing guidance for
allocating such funds is to balance basic State NFS program needs
with award of priority grants for the NFS activities listed below.
Completion and approval of a State Clean Water Strategy is a primary.
consideration in awarding funds for priority NFS activities.
-------
Preference in the award of grant funds for priority NFS activities
will be given to programs which:
1. control particularly difficult or serious nonpoint source
pollution problems, including, but not limited to, problems
resulting from mining activities;
2. implement innovative methods or practices for controlling
nonpoint sources of pollution, including regulatory (e.g.,
enforcement) programs where the Administrator deems appropriate;
3. control interstate nonpoint source pollution problems;
4. carry out ground-water quality protection activities which the
Administrator determines are part of a comprehensive nonpoint
source pollution control program, including research, planning,
ground-water assessments, demonstration programs, enforcement,-.
technical assistance, education, and training to protect ground
water from nonpoint sources o.f pollution;
5. address nationally significant, high-risk NFS problems;
6. address surface/ground-water (cross-media) issues;
7. integrate Federal, State and local programs;
5. provide for monitoring/evaluation of program effectiveness;
9. comprehensively integrate CVA requirements; or
10. demonstrate a long-term commitment to the building of
institutions necessary for effective NFS management and the
continuation of such institutions beyond the authorization
• period.
Maintenance of Effort - A grantee who applies for a 319(h) grant
(and/or a 205(j)(5) grant to support implementation activities)
must meet the maintenance-of-effort (MOE) requirement of 319(h)(9X
by establishing and maintaining its aggregate annual level of State
NFS pollution control expenditures for improving water quality at the
average level of such expenditures in FY 1985 and 1986. States should
establish their FY 1985 and ~1986 level and annual levels based on
expenditures by the primary State agency (or agencies) responsible
for the State's NFS pollution control activities.
This means that:
o A State must maintain an annual level of expenditures on NFS
activities equal to the average of its FY 1985 and 1986 NFS
expenditures i.e., its MOE base level.
o The State's MOE base level should include expenditures only from
non-Federal sources; Federal funds should not be included in
calculating the MOE base level.
-------
30
o Calculation of expenditures is based on activities of the primary
State NFS agency (or agencies) responsible for the State's NFS
pollution control activities, not on what might be termed related
activities of other State agencies with primary missions other
than NFS control. For example, if the State water quality agency
and agricultural'agency both have specific NFS water quality control
programs, these should be counted in the HOE. State soil conservation
programs having water quality improvement or maintenance as a primary
objective will be included in a State's HOE.
o The HOE base level or annual level cannot include the MOE or matching
expenditures for other Federal programs and in particular sections
106, 319, 205(j)(5), 314, and 117. ' .
o Determination of whether the State expenditures meet the MOE level
for purposes of awarding a section 319(h) grant will be based" on
the grantee expenditures projected in the grant application. (The
State .will report whether it has met its MOE requirements in its
final Financial Status Report at the end of the budget year.)
Grant Application Requirements - Once the NFS Assessment and Management
Program have been approved, States may develop grant applications/work
programs for 319(h), pending appropriation of such funds. States
should prepare 319(h) grant applications based on the funding targets
negotiated with the appropriate Region and in accordance with the
requirements for section 205(j)(5) grant applications listed above.
Demonstration Projects - See discussion under section A above for
implementation plan requirements in the work program/grant application
for demonstration projects.
Match - Section 319(h) grants are for the purpose of assisting the
State to implement its approved NFS Management Program and require a
non-Federal match. Section 205(j)(5) funds used for implementing a
State's approved NFS Management Program are awarded under section
319(h) and also require a non-Federal match. The Federal share of
such grants shall not exceed 60%.
The non-Federal share of 3l9(h) as well as 205(j)(5) grants must be
provided from non-Federal sources. The Act lists a number'of activi-
ties which may be conducted in the implementation of the State's NFS
Manageo«nt Program:
...including, as appropriate, nonregulatory or regulatory
programs for enforcement, technical assistance, financial
assistance, education, training, technology transfer, and
demonstration projects....
Generally, non-Federal funds used to support any of the above activities
may be used as non-Federal match under section 319. However, NFS funds
that are used to match or to satisfy MOE requirements for 106, 117,
or other Federal grant programs may not be used to match 319(h) or
205(j)(5) grants (i.e., double counting is not allowed).. None of
the funds counted as non-Federal match may be used for administrative
-------
purposes under section 319(h)(12) if 10% of the grant amount is used
for those purposes, except that costs of implementing enforcement
and regulatory activities, education, training, technical assistance,
demonstration projects, and technology transfer-programs shall not
be subject to this limitation. • •
State and local funds .-used for cost sharing and the portion of such
programs paid by the -landowner/ land manager may be used as match only
to the extent such cost sharing is used for demonstration projects as
provided in section 319(h)(7). This is because cost sharing except
in the case of demonstration projects is an ineligible activity under ~
section 319 and States may not use expenditures for ineligible activities
to match grant funds. This restriction also applies to section 205(j)(5)
funds used to implement NFS Management Programs. Thus, State and local
cost sharing funds are considered acceptable match for section 319 and- -
205(j)(5) only where such assistance is related to the costs of MPS
demonstration projects. We anticipate that many States will be conduct-
ing NFS demonstration projects where they would use their State cost
share funds as match.
Availability for Obligation - Section 319(h) funds and section 205(j)(S)
funds used for implementation granted to a State in any fiscal year
will remain available for obligation by the State for that fiscal year
(the year in which appropriated). If the State does not use its
grant funds in that year, the Regional Administrator may deobligate
the remaining funds and use them for grants to other States in the
next fiscal year or may renegotiate with the State the use and/or
schedule for use of the awarded funds. Section 205(j)(5) funds used
for-program development may be obligated in the following year.
Satisfactory Progress - No subsequent 319(h) grant .[or 205(j)(5) funds
used for implementation] shall be awarded unless the State has demon-
strated satisfactory progress in meeting the schedule set out in
the approved NPS Management Program. Legitimate delays (may result
from such factors as the time required to locate and hire the needed
mix of experienced and trained personnel for.the NPS program. Given
the evolving nature of our understanding of NPS problems and appro-
priate management approaches, EPA Regions will need to exercise dis-
cretion in evaluating satisfactory progress and may address other
concerns than just whether the schedule for the NPS Management Program
has been met. . • .
Administrative Costa - Administrative costs in the form of salaries,
overhead or indirect costs for services provided and charged against
activities and programs carried out under the grant shall not ex-
ceed-10% of the amount of the grant in each year. The costs of imple-
menting enforcement and regulatory activities, education, training,
technical assistance, demonstration projects, and technology transfer
programs shall not be subject to this limitation.
-------
C. Section 319(i)
Grants under-section 319(i) are for ths-purposes of carrying out
ground-water quaHty protection activities which EPA determines will '
advance the State toward implementation of a comprehensive NPS pollution
control program.- Such.activities may 'include, but need not be limited
to, research, pTanning, ground-water assessments, demonstration pro-
grams, enforcement, technical assistance, education and training to
protect the quality of ground water and to prevent contamination of
ground water from nonpoint sources of pollution. Administration of-
section 319(i) grants will be carried out by EPA's Office of Ground-
Water Protection under guidance to be provided. .
D. Section 201(g)(l)
This section, as amended, allows NFS control efforts to be financed
through the Governor's 20% discretionary set-aside of construction
grants funds. These are Title II funds that may be made available
for any purpose for which a grant may be made under sections 319(h)
and (i). NFS activities funded under this section must meet the
requirements for section 319, particularly 319(h) and (i).
(Note: EPA will develop additional information on the use of the
Governor's 20% discretionary set-aside for NFS implementation.)
E. Section 603(c)(2)
The VQA adds a new Title VI providing for Federal capitalization
grants to States for State revolving funds to be used for loans,
primarily for municipal waste treatment. However, these loans may
also be made for the implementation of a NFS Management Program
established under section 319 and development and implementation of
a conservation and management plan (for bays or estuaries) under
section 320, if certain requirements are met under section 603 and
Office of Municipal Pollution Control guidance.
State revolving fund loans may provide a source for funding of programs
or projects to control NPS-pollution. Projects must be .in accordance
with a State's approved NPS Management Program. Favorable repayment
schedules and interest rates are to be set by the State to.ensure
the accomplishment of the public purposes involved while protecting
: the integrity of the State's loan fund. Use of these funds is at
the discretion of the State once the program satisfies section 602
and Office of Municipal Pollution Control guidance.
(Note: EPA will develop additional information on the use of the
State Revolving Fund for NPS implementation.)
-------
F. Section 604(b)
Beginning in FY 1989, States oust reserve each year 1% of their
Title VI.allotments or $100,000, whichever is greater, to carry
out planning under 205(j) and 303(e). Since NFS planning activities
are eligible for funding under 205(j), the 604(b) reserve is an
additional source "of funding 'for NFS activity.
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
Definition of Navigable Waters and Waters of the U.S.*
Navigable Waters
... The terra "navigable waters" means the waters of the United
States, including the territorial seas.
Source: Federal Water Pollution Control Act as Amended by the Water
Quality Act of 1987
Wafers of the U.S.
Waters of the United States or waters of the U.S. means:
(a) All waters which are currently used, were used in the'past, or'
may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce,
including all waters'which are subject to the ebb and flow of the
tide;
(b) All interstate waters, including interstate -"wetlands;**
(c) All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams
(including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, "wetlands,"
sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural
ponds the use, degradation, or destruction of which would affect or
could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such
waters:
(1) Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers
for recreational or other purposes;
(2) From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in
interstate or foreign commerce; or
(3) Which are used or could be used for industrial purposes by
industries in interstate commerce;
(d) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the
United States under this definition;
(e) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a) through (d) of
this definition;
(f) The territorial sea; and .
(g) "Wetlands" adjacent to waters (other than waters that are
themselves wetlands)- identified in paragraphs (a) through '(f) of
this definition.
Wetlands means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface
or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and
that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands
generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas...
*Source: 40 CFR 122.2
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
Major Nonpolnt Source (NFS) Pollution Categories and Subcategories1
1 NONPOINT SOURCES • . •
10 Agriculture
11: Non-irrigated crop production
12: Irrigated crop production
13: Specialty crop production (e.g.,
truck fanning and orchards)
14: Pasture land
15: Range land
16: Feedlots - all types
17: Aquaculture
18: Animal holding/management areas
20 Silviculture
21: Harvesting, reforestation,
residue management
22: Forest management
23: Road construction/maintenance
30 Construction
31: Highway/road/bridge
32: Land development
70 Hydrologic/Habitat Modification
71: Channelization
72: Dredging
73: Dam construction
74: Flow regulation/modification
75: Bridge construction
76: Removal of riparian vegetation
77: Streambank modification/
destabilization
80 Other
81: Atmospheric deposition
82: Waste storage/storage tank
leaks
83: Highway maintenance and
runoff
84: Spills
85: In-place contaminants
86: Natural
90 Source unknown
40 Urban Runoff
41: Storm sewers (source control)
42: Combined sewers (source control)
43: Surface runoff
50 Resource Extraction/Exploration/Development
51: Surface mining
52: Subsurface mining
53: Placer mining
54: Dredge mining
55: Petroleum activities .
56: Mill tailings '
57: Mine tailings
60 Land Disposal (Runoff/Leachate From Permitted Areas)
61" Sludge
62: Wastewater
63: Landfills
64: Industrial land treatment
65: On-site wastewater systems (septic tanks, etc.)
66: Hazardous waste
Source: US EPA.. Guidelines for the Preparation of the 1988 State
Hater Quality Assessment (305(b) Report). April 1., 1987, p. 19.
-------
-------
Appendix C
NPS Provisions in tne Water Quality Act of 19S7
Subject
Section 319
Creates new
§ 319 on....
NPS Manage-
ment Programs
s»:r. an. MAXAG*.Merror NONPOIWTsocxcra or TOU.UTTON. -
STATT Aatoeirarr
"dj COWTXNTS.—The Governor of each SUM shall. after
notice and opportunity for public comment, prepare and submit
to tfte Adrainutrator for approval a rtport which— •
"fAi id«ntl/!« thoM navrfibl« waun within tht SUM
which, without additional action ta control nonpoiat
sourcn of pollution, cannot rtMenably b« «zp*ct«d ta
atuin or maintain applicable water quaiity jtandarta or
thfl {pail and nquirtmcnu of thia Act: '
••fB» idmtiflM thoM eattfohn and lubcauforiat of
nonpoint jourcn or. whtrt appropriate, particular
nonpoint soureti which add nfBifkant poUutjon u> each
portion of the navifabl* waun identified under jubpara-
graph fAi in amounta which contribute to such portion not
meeting iuch water quality su-darda or nich goal* and
requirements:
••'O deacnbtti the proem, includinf interfovernmental
coordination and public participation, for identifying best
management practice* and mtaaturw to control each cat-
egory and subeaufory of nonpoint sources and. where
appropriate, particular- nonpoint sourcaa identified under
subparafraph (B> and to reduce, to the maximum eitant
practicable, the level of pollution reaultuf from such cat*
tfory. subcattfory. or source: and
"(0) ideatiAae and deacnbee State and local programa for
poiluuca addad from aonpotnt sourtmi to. and
the quality of. each such portion of the navigable
water*, jpfii^^g but not limited to thoat prograna which
are receiving Federal aeturance under lubeerhona (hJ and
(i).
Irrf ormatloft
used to
prepare
State
Assessment
Report
"(2) iNvbaxAtiow uw» o« fM»4ju-noM.—In developing tne
report required by thia section, the State (A) may rely upon
information developed punuant to sectiona 208, 303Ce), 30«f),
305fb). and 314. and other information at appropriate, and (B)
may utilute appropriate elementa of the weate treatment
managem*at plan* developed pursuant to section* 20ttb) and
303, to the extent such elementa are cenaiateat with and fulfill
the requirement! of thii tecnon.
-------
Subject
Contents . . .
of State (b»5TATf
Manaoement "f l) lli C»*«ut—Tht Govtraor of aach Stata. for that Stata
a ai •' -NI . or in combination with adjactnt Scatta, shall. aftar notica and
opportunity for public commtnt. prtpart aod submit to tht
Adnuautrator for approval t maaagtmtat program which such
Sutt propoatt to unpltmtnt ia the fiat four flical ytan oagia-
rung arttr tit data of submianoa of such maaagtmtat program
for eontrollinf pollution addtd from aonpoust soureat to tht
navigable waurs within tha Stata and improving the quality of
such wtttn.
"(2) Srtctnc CON TIN n.—Each Baaagtma&t program pro*
poatd for impltmtntaaon undar thtf tubMCtioB «aaU 'includt
•ach of tht following:
"(A) Aa tdtnnflcauon 'of tha baat maaagtmrat practical
and maaiuraa which wUl ba uadartakao to raduet poUutaat
loading! ratulung -from aaca catagory, •ubcatagory, or
particular oonpoint sourct dtaignattd oadar paragraph
(IXB), taking into account tha impact'of tha pracnca oa
ground watar quality.
"(B) Aa idaauflcadon of prognma fj~-
gram or. if thart ia not such adaquata authority, a iiat of
such additional autheritiaa aa will ba- aacaaaary to
implantnt such maaagtmtat program. A achadula aad
eommitaMBt by tha Stata or Stataa to sat* such additional
authoritita at txpaditioutly at practicaWt.
"tE) Sourcat or Ftdaral and othtr asaiatanct and funding
(other tharvastittanc* providad undar lubatctions (h) and
li)l which will ba availablt in tach of such fiacal years for
supporting impltmtntation of such practicat and uitatui tt
aad tht purpoata for which such ataiatanoa will ba uatd ia
tach of such fiacal yaara.
-------
-3-
Sybject
Contents
of State
"'anagement
Programs'
[continued)
Other require-
ments for State
Assessment/Man-
agement Programs
"iF> An identification of Federal financial assistance pro*
Srams and Federal development project! for which the
late will review individual assistance applicationa or
development projects for their effect on water quality
pursuant to the procedure! set forth in Executive Order
12372 a* in effect on September 17, 1983, to determine
whether such assistance application* or development
project* would be consistent with the program prepared]
under thia lubeeetion; for the purpoee* of thia subpara*
graph, identification shall not be limited to the aasistance
S'ograms or development project* subject to Executive
rder 12.172 but may include any proframa liatad in the
moat recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Aaaistanca which
may have an effect on the purpoaaa and objectivea of the
State i nonpomi source pollution management profram.
Use of
local
private
experts
s on
watershed-
by-watersned
basis .
"(3) UTIUZATTON or LOCAL AND MHVATI ctwrr*.—In develop*
ing snJ implementing a management program under thia
suoaection, a State shall, to the maximum extent practicable.
involvt local public and private agencies and organixationa
which have expertise in control of nonpoint sources of pollution.
"(4i OKVCLUPMCNT ON WATXJUHCO SATO.—A State shall, to the
maximum extent practicable, develop and implement a manage*
ment program under thia subsection on a wturshed-by-wtter-
shed basis wuhm such State.
Cooperation
Requirement
Time framt for
State submittal
of Report/
. Program
" shall be developed in coeperation with
local, substate regional, and interstate entitiea which are ac-
tively planning ror the implementation of nonpoint source
pollution controls and have either been certified by the
Administrator in accordance with section 208. have worked
jointly with the State on water quality management planning
under section 205(j'. or have been designated by the State
legialativt body or Governor aa water quality management
planning agencies for their geographic area*.
"(2) TIMI PCJUOO rat svamejw* or lootn AMV KA»AC»
MINT ntocJUMS.—Each report and managtraeat prograa shall
be aubraitted to the Administrator during the iS-month period
beginning on the date oV the enaetnent of ^' '
-------
-4-
Subject
Time frame
for EPA
approval of
State Reports/
Management
Programs
"fd) AmovAt os DBAmovAL or Room A*» T
PlOGftAMf.—
"(1) DIAAUNS. —Subject to paragraph (2), net later than ISO
. days after the date of submission to the Administrator of
reort or manaement
o 107
report or management program under this Mction (other than
subsections (h). (U and (kJt, the Administrator shall tither
•pprovt or diaapprove such rtport or management program. as
the eaat may bo. The Administrator nay approve a portion of a
management profram under thia iiihesrfniii If tho AHminit'
tntor do« not diaapprty** a rvport. BMaafimant promm. or
portion of a manaftmtat prof«m ia nich 18Way,peno4 weh
report, maaaftmeat profna, or portioa ahaJJ be deemed ap-
proved for purpoaai of thia aacrioo.
for
criteria
lisapproval
"(2) Ptocxouu fot DtiA»novAL—If. after notice and oppor-
tunity for public comment and conciliation with appropriate
Ftderal and State ac«nciea and other iotarected penona, the
Adniniatrator determinea that—
"(A) the propoaed manafiment prosraa or any portioo
thereof doea not meet the requirementa of mheaction (bX2)
of thia tection or ia not likeJy to tctiafy, ia whote or ia part.
the rpeJa and requirementa of thia Act:
"(B) adequate authority dcca not txiat, or adequate re».
•oureaa an .act avaiiabia, to implement iuch profraa or
portioa;
"(O the achedule for iaplementinf wch profraa or
ponioa ia not iufllciently expeditioua; or
"(0) the practicea and maaaurea propoaed ia wch pro-
gram or portion are not adequate to reduce the level of
pollution in navigable water* ia tho State reaultinf from
non point toureea and to improve the quality of Bankable
waters in the State:
the Administrator shall within 6 montha of the receipt of the
propoaed program notify the State of aay reviaioaa or modifica-
tion* neceaaary to obtain approval. The State ahaU thereupon
have an additional 3 montha to submit its revised management
program and the Administrator shall approve or disapprove
such revised program within three montha of receipt.
What if
State falls
to submit
an Assessment
Report?
"(3) PAUuai or STATS TO susim aooar—If a Governor of a
State doea not submit the report required by lubeectioa (a)
within the period specified by subsection
-------
-5-
Subject
What if
State fails
to suCmit a
Program?
"(tt LOCAL MANACIMCNT PIOCXAMS; TXCHNICAL ASSISTANCE—If s
Stats fails to submit a management program under subsection (b) or
.the Administrator doss not approve such a management program, a
local public agency or organization which has expertiss in, and
authority to. central water pollution resulting from nonpoint
sources in any arts of such Stats which ths Administrator deter-
mines is of sufficient geographic size may, with approval of such
Stats, request ths Administrator to provide, and the Administrator
shall provide, technical assistance to such agtncy or organization in
developing for such area a managttnent program which is rtestfribert
in subsection (b) and can be approved pursuant to subsection (d).
Aftsr development of such managtmsnt program, sues agency or
onrsnustion snail submit such management program to the
Administrator for approval. If ths Administrator approval such
-management program, such agency or organisation shau be aUgfbls
to recsive financial ssrifrm uadsr subsection CaJ far:~'
tioa of such management program as if such agtncr or organisation
were a Stats for which s report submitted under subsection (a) and a
managtmsnt program submitted uadsr subsection (b) were approved
under this section. Such financial assistance shall be subject to ths
same terms and conditions as assistance provided to a Stats uadsr
subsection (h).
•Assitance
Interstate
Conference
"(0 TscMMfCAi ASSISTANCS ma STATTS.—Upon request of a State.
the Administrator may provide technical assistance to such Sui» in
developing a management program approved und*r subsection (b)
for those portions of the navigable waters requested by such Stsu.
"'?> INTISJTATS MANACtMtNT CONntlSNCZ.—
"(1) CONVKMIKO Or OONfTSSKCK NOTinCATtOK; WSfOSX.—If
any portion of the navigable watars in any Stats which is
implementing a management program approved under this
section is not meeting applicable watsr quality standards or the
fosls and rsquirvments of this Act as a result, in whole or in
part, of pollution from nonpoint sources in another Stats, such
Stats may petition the Administrator to convene, and the
Administrator shall convene, a management conference of all
States which contribute significant pollution resulting from
nonpoint sources to such portion. If, on ths basis of information
available, ths Administrator determines that a Stats is not
meeting applicable water quality standards or ths goals and
requirements of this Act as s result, in whole or* in part, of
significant pollution from nonpoint sources in another Stats,
ths Administrator shall notify such States. Ths Administrator
may convene s management conference under this paragraph
not later than ISO days aAer giving such notification, whether
or not the State which is not meeting such standards requests
such conference. Ths purpose of such conference shall be to
develop an agretmtnt among such Slats* to reduce ths Imi of
pollution in such portion resulting from nonpoint sources and to
improve the water quality of such portion. Nothing in such
agreement shall superseds or abrogate rights to quantities of
water'which have been established by Interstate water com-
p*cu. Supreme Court decrees, or Stats water laws. This subsec-
tion shall not apply to any pollution which is subject to the
Colorado Rivtr Basin Salinity Control Act. The rsquirsment
that tht Administrator convene a management conference snail
not be subject to the provisions of section 505 of this Act.
-------
•6-
Subjgct
Interstate
Management
Conference
(continued)
Requirements
for grantT
under 5 3T9 (h)
Assessment/
Program must oe
approved
Use of 205 (j)(5)
funds
"ederal snare
not to exceed
601
No rnor? than 15%
of the authorization
for this subsection
may go to one State
Priority
considerations for
§ 319 (h) grants
"(2) STATC MANACCMCNT MOCHA* KCQUIIICMCXT.—To tht
extent that the SutM reach agreement through such con-
ferenct. the management proframs of tht State* which ar*
parties to such agreements and which contribute significant
pollution to tht navjgabie water* or portion* thtrtof not meet*
ing applicablt wattr quality standards or foals and require-
mtnu of this Act will bt revised to reflect such agreement Such
management programs (hall bt consistent with Federal and
SUM law.
"(hj
"(1) C«AWT» rot IMyUMBrTAtTOM OT MANAOUBTr MO
c«AMi.-Upoa apchcaiMo erf a Suu for which a rtnort wboit>
tad undtr nibaKtfon (a) aad a manaiiatat prw»oMbn
undtr nibai«twa rb) • approved uadOT thi •trtoo
Adnuniatrator ahail maJu fnnta. wMaet to aueh tarai
conditiona M tht Administrator eomidtn appropriata, irHtr
thta tubatctioa to »ueh Suta for tht purpoat of aaiiatiac tha>
Suu in inpltmtnuaf such maaa«tmaat procma. Fuada r*>
Mnrtd puntuuu to atction 205gx5) of this Act may bt uatd to
dtvtiop-and iiapltmtnt such manaftmtnt profram.
"(2) AmjeATiONB.—Aa appikatioa for a mat oadtr Oua
•ubtaction ia cay fiacai ytcr ahail bs ta aticn form and ahaJJ
eontaia cuea othtr informattoa aa the Admuuatrator may ra>
quire, including *n idtntulcatioa aad dJaacripuoa of tat baat
manaffmtnt praeticaa and mtMuraa whka tat Statt propoata
to aaaut. tncouraf*. or rtquirw ia auch ytar with tht FtdaraJ
auutAnca to bt previdtd undtr tht franc
"(3) FKOKXAI. XKAAX.— Tl>t Ftdtral ahart of tht coat of aach
fflanaftratat orofraa inpltmtntad with F«dtrai •atiatinct
undtr thta luoatction ia any flacal ytar ahall not txcatd SO
ptrctnt of tht coat incurrtd by tht Statt ia impitmtatinf rach
manaftmtat profnua and ahail bt mad* oa condition that tht
non-Ftdtrai ahart ia providtd from ooa^Ftdtral aoureaa.
"(4) LiMrfAnoM ON QiAjrr AMOUNT*—Notwithstanding aay
othtr proviaioa of thta aubatction, oot met* thaa 15 paretat of
tht amount aopropriatad to carry out thia aubatctioa may bo
uatd to mama mat* to any oae SUM, including any mati to
any local public agtncy or organiiatioa with authority to coo*
trol pollution from nonpoint aoureaa ia any arao of aueh Statt.
"15) PUOIUTT roa smcnvt MBOiANtna.—For aach flacal
ytar btginning aftor Stptambtr 30, 1917, tht Adminiatrator
may givt priority ia making graata undtr this aubaoction. aad
ahall givt conaidtration in dttarmining tht Ftdtral ahart of aay
•uch grant, to Sutta which havt impitmtntod or art propoaing
to impitmtnt managtmtnt programa which will—
"(A) control particularly difficult or aariovt aonpoint
aourca pollution probltma, including, out not limittd to,
probl«m« resulting from mining actjvuiea;
"(B) implement innovative methods or praeticaa for
controlling nonpoint aoureaa of pollution, including
regulatory programa where the Adminiatrator dooms
appropriate:
-------
-7-
Subject
Requirements for grants under
§ 319 (n) (continued)
Priority
considerations fir
§ 319 (h) grants
for
ooligation
'Financial assistance
to Individuals only
for costs related to
demonstration projects
.Satisfactory progress
of
effort
Request for
information
Annual State
reports
required
Limitation on
administrative
costs (snail
not exceed 1(31)
•'(C) control interstate nonpoint source pollution prob-
lems: or
"(D> carry out ground watar quality protection activities
which the Administrator determines are part of a cam*
prehensive nonpoint source pollution control program,
including research, planning, ground watar aseeesmenta.
demonstration programs, enforcement, technical assistance.
education, and training to protect ground water quality
from nonpoint sourcas of pollution.
"(8) AVAILASIUTY roa OBLIGATION.—The funda panted to
each State pursuant to thia subsection in a focal yew shall
remain available for obligation by such State for the focal yew
for which appropriated. The amount of any such funda not
obligated by the end of such fiaeal yew shall be available to the
Administrator for panting to other Statae undar ***** subasctias
ia the next focal yew.
"(7) LauTATWH cat uai ce? nnrae.—flutes may uae fuada froa
gnata made pursuant to thai section for *«*••*< ^| asaiataaoe to
, only to **** *r*Tflt *h** such assistance 'ia ralatad to thai
thia subsection ia any flecal yaw to a State which ia the
preceding focal yaw received a gnat under thai suhaactioa
unlaaa the Administrator detejrninea that such State mad*
satiafactory progress in such preceding focal yaw ia saewting
the schedule specified by such State undar subsection fbM2).
"t9» MAIMTSMANO or S7TOBT.—No grant may be made to a
Stata under thia subsection in any focal yew unlaaa such State
enters into such agreements with the Administrator aa the
Administrator may require to ensure that such State will main*
tain ita aggregate expenditure* from all other sources for pro*
• grams for controlling pollution added to the navigable watars in
such-Stata from nonpoint sourcas and improving the quality of"
such watars at or above the average level of such expenditures
in its two focal years preceding the data of enactment of thia
subsection
"(10) REVEST roa i.«roBMATiON.—The Administrator may
request such information, data, and reports aa he considers
necessary to make the determination or continuing eligibility
for grants under thia section.
"(11) Rtfoarmc ANO onm xaquiantom.—Each State shall
report to the Administrator on an annual basis concerning (A)
its progress in meeting the schedule of milestones submitted
pursuant to subsection to the
extent that appropriate information ia available, reductions in
nonpoint source pollutant loading and improvements ia watar
quality for those navigable waters or watersheds within tha
biata which were identified pursuant to subsection (all* A) of
this section resulting from implementation of tha management
program.
"i 12) LIMITATION ow AOMtMtrnurtvt coers.—For purposes of
this subsection, administrative costs in the form of salaries.
overhead, or indirect costs for services provided and charged
against activities and programs carried out with a grant under
this subsection shall not exceed in any focal yew 10 percent of
the amount of the grant in such yew, except that costs of
implementing enforcement and regulatory activities, education.
training, technical assistance, demonstration projects, and tech-
nology transfer programs shall not be subject to this limitation.
-------
Subject
Requirements for grants under $ 319 (1)
for protecting groundwater quality"
Eligiole applicants
and activities
Federal snare
not to exceed 50%
iu CHANTS ro* PxoTtcriNc ijnouwowATti yfAunr.—
"U> EUCIILC APPUCANTI AND ACTIVITIES—Upon application
of a State lor which a report submitted under subsection t«) and
a plan submitted under subsection tbi is approved under this,
section, the Administrator shall make mnts under this subsec-
tion to such State for the purpose or sssistiha; such State in
carrying out ground water quality protection activities which
the Adminifttrator determine* will advance the State toward
implementation of a comprehensive nonpotnt sourer pollution
control program. Such activities shall include, but not bt
limited to, research. planning, groundwatsr sasessmects, dem-
onstration programs, enforcement. tecnnkaJ assists nrs
education and tniaiaf to protect the quality of grouadwater
and to prevent contamination of grouadwater from aonpoiat
aouress of pollution.
"(2) AmjCATiOMa.—Aa appJicattoa foe e grant under that
subsection shall be in such form and snail contain such inJforma-
tioa as the Administrator may require.
"(3) FtatSAi. IMAU; MAXIMUM AMOWKT.—1%i Federal than
of the cost of assisting a State in carrying out froundwatsr
protection activities in any fiscal year under this subsection
•hall be 50 percent of the costs incurred by the Stats in carryin*
out such activities, except that the auuuaun amount of Federal
assistance which any State may receive under this subsection in
any fiscal year shall not exceed 1150.000.
"(4) Rtfocr.—The Administrator shall Include in each report
transmitted under subsection (m) a report oa the activities and
programs implemented under this subsection during the preced-
ing fiscal year.
Authorizations for
§ 319 (n) and (i)
EPA required to
compile information
regarding Federal
programs/projects
"(j) AUTMOKIZATIQN or A*F*OWUATJONS,—There is suthorissd to bs
expropriated to carry out subsections (h) and (D not to neseJ
tiO.000.000 for fiscal year 1988. $100,000.000 per fiscal ywr for each
of fiscal years 1989 snd 1990. and S130.000.000 tor fiscal war 1991;
except that for each of such fiscal years not to exceed 17,300.000 may
bt mad* available to carry out subsection (i). SUB* sppropriatsd
pursuant to this subsection shall remain svailabto until expended.
"(k) CoNiwrcNor or Omn PIWIAMS AX» Ptotwsn WITH
MANACSMtNt PIOC«AMS.—The Adainiitntor shall transmit to the
Office of Management and Budget and the appropriate Federal
- departments and Sfencies s list of those ssststaac* arograms sad
development projects identified by each State under subssctioa
(bX2*F) for which individual assistance spplications sad projects
will be reviewed pursuant to the procedures set forth in Executive
Order 12372 as in effect on .September 17,1983. BstjinniBf not later
than sixty day* after receiving notification by the Administrator.
esch Federal department snd afency shall modify existing rsfula-
tions to si low States to review individual development projects and
assistance spplications under the identified Federal assistance pro-
grams-and-.shall accommodate, according to the requirements snd
definitions of Executive Order 12372. as in effect on September 17,
1983. the concerns of the State retarding the consistency of such
applications or projects with the State nonpoint source pollution
management program.
-------
Subject
.9.
EPA required
to compile
information
on BMPs
"ID CoLLirnoN or I*rom*ATrow.—The Administrator thai) collect
•nd makt available, through publication* tnd other appropriate
maanj. information pertaining to management practica* aad ia-
plemtntation method* including, but not limited to. (1) information
concerninf the co»u and relative •flicienciea of bat management
practice* for rtdueing nonpoint tourct pollution; and (2) available
data concerning the rtlationahip batwttn watar quality and im-
plementation of vanoua management pncticaa to control nonpoint
aoureta of poll ution.
EPA annual
reports
required
"(mJ Rtwati or ,
"(1) ANNUAL MMMn.— Not lattr than January
•ach January I thereafter, tha Admu,i
Commatta* on Public Workj and
and
EPA final
report
required
"(2) FWAI, loetr.— Not Utar thaa Janoarr I 1990, tba
Adainiatntor thai! traaamit to Coafraaa a Anal rtport oa th*
oird out oadw th* aactioo. Such raort. at a
X) daacribt the manaffuwnt prognaa baiac impla
tari by th* Stataa to? typa* and amountlTaAetad
nerigabk watan, eataforMa and cubeatagohaa at noopoint
aoufcaa. aad typaa of ba*t mnn*f*mant practical batcg
'?B) dcaerib* th* «rp*ri*nca* o/th* Stata* !a
achedulea and implementing beat management practicaa;
"iG daechb* th* amount and purpoae of graata awarded
pursuant to •ubaectiona (h) aad (1) of thia eaction;
"(0) identify, to the extent that Information ia available,
the prograaa mad* ia reducing pollutant load* aad improv-
ing water quality ia th* navigable watara;
"<£) indicate what further action* aaed to be takes to
attain and maintain ia then navigable water* (U applicable
water quality standard*, aad (ID th* goal* aad requiram*ate
of this Ace
"(F) include reeomaandatioB* af
th* Uaitad Stataa which
concerning future prograa* (including enfercea*nt pro-
grama) for controlling poUutiea from ooapoiat aourcea; aad
"(G) identify the activities aad program* of departaeata,
agenciae. and iactruaeataUtie* oTth* Uai -
are iaconaiatant with th* management pret
by th* Stataa aad recoaaend modifkationa a* that such
acttvitiea aad programa are ceneiatent with aad aaaiat th*
State* ia imptanentAtioa of such maaag*m*at
EPA staffing
levels
"(n) S« Aawt foa AaMiuwnunvt PntowKB.-Not ta" J» J
oarcant of th* fuada appropriatad purauaat to fuhecc&oa U) for aay
fecal year ahall b* availabl* to th* Administrator to maintam
penonnel level* at the Eavironmantal Proteetioa Agency at l*v»la
which are adequate to carry out thil atctioa ia wca yamr. •
-------
Sublect
-10-
Policy for
control of
NPS pollution
(b» POUCY roil CONTHOL or NONWINT Sovim or POLLUTION.—
Stction lOlia) is amtndtd by itrUunf out "end" at tht cadi of
parafraph (5), by striking out tht ptriod at tht «nd of paragraph (6)
and inaartinc in litu thtrtof "; and", aad by addinf at tha tod
thereof tht followinf:
"(?) it ii tht national policy that program* for tht control of
nonpoint sources of pollution bt dtwioptd and iapltmtntad us
an axptditious manntr to aa to tnabtt tht foals of this Act to bt
ratt throuc h tht control of both point and noapoint aaureaa of
pollution.'.
Construction grant set-asides
Governor's discretionary
set-aside * § 201(g)(U
Uihtd under Metioa 319 of this Art and (J) for oMmmtat and
impltmahtatton of a eonatrracioa and otaa
jtction 320 of this Ace. Tht fund thail bt
uadtr
and crtdietd wtth rtpaymtata. and tht fund baknca thail bt avail*
' aolt in ptrpttuity for providiof tuch f*t*rtf1al •rfitTttifit
-------
-u-
Subject
Intended Use
Plans required
for State
Revolving
Funds
pwMagjuad. Such intended use plan shall inc&de, but not be
ti2SL^Ji£C" £*&* 1* ««wetic« of publicly owud
»««m«jt worka on the State s priority liat dewloped ffursuant
to section 216 of thia Act and a liaTofictivittTillSe^
••«^J«^^o«3Wtiai3»ofthffS ^^
^S5*2* ^-S£?Sd^ ^ ^
(,» information on the actmtiaa to be supported. ingi»di»y «
ttswwwffsi-SEasisssSj
"(4) aaaurancae and specific propoaeJa for mecciaa; the rwuirt-
ana of ptrafrapha t3X (4), <5), and (6) of section W2ft) of taic
Ace and
"(5) the criteria and method esrsbHaherf for the dietriaatioB of
fuade.
Consistency
requirement for
State Revolving
Funds
"(0 CM
pnmde financial aanatance
fund only wtth
oprt
from ita
to a
RXBVHSMINTL—
Other Miscellaneous NPS Provisions
Rural Clean
Water Pro-
gram (RWCP)
Son 2U8(jX9J is amended by strikinf
'e> Rtnut GUAM „,.. ^^^^
out-'and" after "1981," and by matron*; after "1912," the
and such luaa at may be aecaeaaiTlor fiscal jma 1983
1990. .
Agricultural
stornwater
discharges
no longer
defined as
point sources
SCC MX ACJUCT.LTVJUL STOSUIWATUIOISCHAACB.
Section 302(14) 'rtlatinf to the definition of point source* ia
afflended by inserting after "doae not include" the following: "a(n*
cultural stormwatar diacharfM and".
Indian Tr1bs»
3CC Ml
"(d< CooMftAnvc AcatZMom.—In order to tnture the eonaiatant
iapJemenution of the rtquirtmenu of thia Act. an Indian trine and
the State or Statta in which the lands of such tribe are located may
enter into a cooperative afmmtni subject to the review and so-
proval of the Administrator, to jointly plan and administer the
raquirtmtnu of thia Act
-------
•12-
SuDject
Indian Tribes
"ft* TRKATMCNT u STATU.—Tha Administrator is authorizad to
traat vt Indian tribe aa • Stata for purpoMt of ntia II and factions
104. UK. 303. 305. 306. 309. 314, 319. 401. 402. and 404 of this Act to
tht dafraa nacassary to carry out tht objactivaa of thia sscuon, but
only if—
"(1) tha Indian trio* haa a fovtrnina; body carryinf out
substantial gownmanul dutiaa and powars;
"(2) tha functions to ba axarciaad by tha Indian triba panaia
ta tha manaftoant and protection of watar raaouroaa which ara
hold by anlndian triba. hald by the Uaiiad Stataa in tm* fot
Indiana. bald by a nambaf. of an Indian triba if such proparty
wise within tha boroOT of aa ladiaa raaarv*tiaa;aad
-tJ) tha ladiaa thba it raatoaaMy cnactad ta ba eafa^la, ia
tha AttminiatTator't JodfBaai. of emrrytn* «tt tha naactkaa t»
be aurriaad la • auaaar ranaiatint with tha)
, of thai Act aad of aU appikabia ranladeaa,
Such traatmant aa a SUta may tadad* tha itraet pro
raaarrad unbar Mbaaetion
-------
APPENDIX C
STATUS OF FY 1987 205(j)(5) GRANT AWARDS
FY 1987 FUNDING TARGETS
-------
-------
Status of FY 1987 205 (j). (5) Grant Awards
EPA Region
I
II
III
IV
VI
VII
. State
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Khooe Island
Vermont '
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Inlands
Delaware
District of Colmibia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Chio
Wisconsin
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
'Texas
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Application
A 11/10/87
A 11/10/87
A 11/13/87
A 10/29/87
A 08/21/87
A 08/20/87 .
P 01/15/88
P 01/15/88
P 01/15/88
A 9/15/87
In preparation
A 9/15/87
In preparation
In preparation
A 8/15/87
A 10/15/87
A 10/01/87
A 10/15/87
A 10/15/87
A 10/01/87
A 10/15/87
A 10/01/87
P 10/01/87
A 09/29/87
P 10/01/87
P 10/01/87
A 09/02/87
P 11/01/87
In preparation
A 10/20/87
In preparation
In preparation
A 10/15/87
In preparation
In preparation
A 11/01/87
A 11/01/87
Award
P 01/31/88
P 01/31/88
P 01/31/88
A 11/30/87
A 10/19/87
A 10/19/87
P 04/30/88
P 03/31/88
A 9/30/87
(partial)
A 09/30/87
P 02/29/88
A 09/30/87
A 09/30/87
A 09/30/87
A 09/30/87
A 09/30/87
P 11/30/87
P 11/30/87
P 11/30/87
P 11/30/87
A 09/28/87
P 11/30/87
P 11/30/87
P 02/29/88
A 11/30/87
P 02/30/88
P 12/31/87
VIII
IX
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah -
Wyoming
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
American Samoa
Commonwealth of Northern
Mariana Islands . .
Guam
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Klflft A * Actual; P - Projected
A 03/31/87
A 08/01/87
A 07/01/87
A 03/15/87
A 08/31/87
A 07/15/87
A 12/15/87
A 12/15/87
A 12/15/87
A 12/15/87
A 10/01/87
A 10/01/87
A 10/01/87
P 11/01/87
A 09/15/87
A 08/15/87
A 09/01/87
A 09/30/87.
A 09/3O/87
A 09/30/87
A 09/30/87
A 09/30/87
A 09/30/87
A 01/15/88
A 01/15/88
A 01/15/88
A 01A5/88
A 11/01/87
A 11/01/87
A 11/01/87
A 12/15/87
A 11/01/87
A 10/15/87
P 01/31/88
1) Long periods between application and grant award signify either unavailability
ot funds for obligation due to delay in appropriation or negotiation of an
approvabie work program.
-------
FY 1987 $205(j)(5) FUNDING TARGETS
.egion
«%
*
*»
2
2
3
^
3
3
3
^
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
6
6
&
6
6
7
7
7
7
a
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
' 9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
State
CT
riA
ME .
NH
RI
VT
N J
NY
PR
VI
CC
DE
no
. PA
VA
WV
AL
FU
6A
KY
MS
MC
sc
TN
IL
IN
MI
MM
OH
MI
AR
LA
NM
OK
TX
IA
KS
MO
NE
CO
f!T
NO
SD
UT
UY
AS
AZ
CA
GU
HI
NMI
NV
TT
AK
ID
OR
MA
Construction
Grant t
O.O 12402
O.O34371
0.007837
0.010117
0. 006798
O. 00497
0.041369
O.I '.1741
0.013204
O.OOOS28
0.00497
0.00497
0. 024485
0.040101
0.020718
0.01S781
O. 01 132
0.034172
0.017117
0.012865
0.009121
0.018271
0.010371
0.014706
0.0*5723
0.0243*3
0.043529
0.018607
0.056991
0.027369
0.006622
0.011129
0.00497
0.008179
0.046271
0.013701
0.009138
0. 028064
0.005178
0.008098
0.00497
0.00497
O.OO497
O.OOS334
0. 00497
O. 000909
O.OO6838
0. 072403
0.000658
O.OO7B41
0.000422
0. OO497
0.000324
O.OO6039
0.00497
0.011436
0.017605
Construction
Grant Allotment
14182741
39306160
8962276
11569649
7774091
5683617
47308968
127785331
15099896
603813
5683617
5683617
280OO679
45958902
23692794
18046915
12945382
39078587
19574744
14735093
10430639
20894442
11860120
16817561
52339039
27901187
49779111
21278686
65174053
31298778
7572820
12726957
5683617
9353382
32914822
15668258
10430080
32093369
5921483
9260731
5683617
3683617
3683617
6099882
3683617
1039319
7819834
B2798983
732479
8966830
482393
3683617
370522
±928982
36836 IT
13O7Q03S
20132814
1% Of
Allotment
141827
393062
89623
113696
77741
36836
47309O
1277833
130999
6038
36836
36836
280007
458389
236928
180469
129434
390786
19S74>
147331
104306
208944
118601
168276
32359O
279012
497791
212787
651741
312988
73728
127270
56836
93334
329148
156683
104501
320936
59215
926O8
56836
56836
56836
60999
36836
10393
78198
827990
7323
89668
4826
36836
3703
69290
36836
130780
201328
S205(j)<5)
Target*
141827
393062
100000
115696
1OOOOO
1OOOOO
473O90
1277833
150999-
100000
100000
100000
280OO7
458589
236928
186469
129454
390786
193747
147351
1O4306
208944
118601
168276
523590
279012
497791
212787
651741
312988
100000
127270
1000OO
100000
S2914B
156683
104501
320936
1OOOOO
1000OO
. I 00000
loooob
100000
100000
100000
10000O
10OOOO
827990
100000
1OOOOO
1000OO
1OOOOO
100000
100OOO
1OOOOO
130780
201328
-------
APPENDIX D
EXPECTED SUBMISSION BY STATES OF NFS ASSESSMENT REPORTS
AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
-------
-------
Expected Submission by States of NFS Assessment Reports and Management Programs
EPA Region State
I Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
ftiode Island
Vermont
II ' New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
III Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
Vest Virginia
IV Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
V Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Chio
Wisconsin
VI Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
vil Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
VIII Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
IX Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
American Samoa
Commonwealth of
Northern Marianas
• Guam
X Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Assessment Reports1
4/01/88
4/01/88
4/01/88
4/01/88
4/01/88
4/01/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
4/01/88
4/01/88
4/01/88
4/01/88
4/01/88
4/01/88
4/01/88
4/01/88
4/01/88
4/01/88
4/01/88
4/01/88
4/01/88
4/01/88
4/01/88
4/01/88
4/01/88
4/01/88
4/01/88
4/01/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
4/01/88
2/15/88
8/04/88
4/01/88
" 8/04/88
4/01/88
7/01/88
4/30/88
4/30/88
4/30/88
4/30/88
4/30/88
4/30/88
4/01/88
4/01/88
4/01/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
4/01/88
4/01/88
• 4/01/88
5/01/88
4/01/88
Management Programs
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/83
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
6/01/88
6/15/88
6/01/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/88
8/04/88.
1) Dates for expected submission of at least the first two elements of the
Assessment Report (list of waters not expected to meet water quality standards.
without iiy& controls and categories/subcategories/sources causing such impacts)
as required by 19b8 305{bi. Report Guidance.
-------
4
------- |