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

-------