'nited States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Water Planning Division
Washington DC 20460
January 1980
Water
Water Quality Management
Five Year Strategy
FY 81-Baseline
v '
-------
WQT1 FIVE-YEAR STRATEGY
(FY SI-BASELINE)
WATER PLANNING DIVISION
OFFICE OF WATER PLANNING AND STANDARDS
JANUARY 1980
-------
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
UJ
;r WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
TO: Participants in the Water Quality Management (WQM) Program
The five year strategy sets forth EPA's overall policy for the Water
Quality Management (WQM) program under sections 106 and 208 of the Clean
Water Act. The strategy is intended to help States, areawide agencies, and
others involved in the WQM program plan their long-term activities and nego-
tiate future State/EPA Agreements. This strategy was developed with input
from all the WQM participants, including the Ad Hoc Advisors.
The FY 81 Baseline Strategy builds and expands upon the FY 80 Baseline
Strategy (August 1979). The FY 81 document is better-timed to assist State
and areawide program planing, and provides more detail on 208 projects and
106-funded activities.
As you will see as you review the strategy, it covers goals, priorities,
funding policies, future funding, emerging policy issues, and long-term
objectives for the WQM program. We view the strategy as a dynamic document,
one which will improve in usefulness to program participants over the next
few years. As always, we welcome your comments and suggestions on the con-
tent, format, and approach of the strategy. Please address your comments
to David Ziegler, Acting Chief, Policy and Evaluation Branch, Water Planning
Division (WH-554)., 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
Merf
Water Planning Division
-------
.!! Y. ! iy.M
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose
The purpose of this strategy is to provide long-range direction for
the water quality management (WQM) program to assist EPA Regions, States,
areawide agencies, and the participating public with program planning in
FY 81 and beyond. The strategy will also provide EPA management, the Con-
gress, the Administration, and the public with descriptions of program
needs and directions.
The strategy affects primarily those in the EPA Regions, States, and
designated areawide agencies who manage the WQM program. It is not a com-
prehensive water quality strategy, since its focus is on WQM activities
defined by sections 106, 208, and 303(e) of the Clean Water Act. The
strategy discusses some related programs such as construction grants,
monitoring, water quality standards, and enforcement but does not set
policy for these programs.
B. Background
Since 1972, EPA has made visible progress toward meeting the clean
water goals of the Act. One area where progress is evident is in pre-
paration of initial State and areawide 208 plans which lay the ground-
work for continuing WQM efforts. Now that most initial planning is com-
plete, the participants in the WQM program must implement the decisions
made in the planning process and continue to fill important gaps in the
WQM plans. EPA's desire is to augment the existing point source control
framework with a nonpoint source framework.
As EPA implements this strategy, it will stress (1) the continuation
of problem-solving efforts, with an emphasis on establishing operational
control programs, (2) the development of an information base on the control
of nonpoint sources, and (3) the improvement of program management to maxi-
mize the effectiveness of limited WQM resources.
II. GOALS AND PRIORITIES
A. Gp_al_
The goal of the WQM program is to assist State and local agencies
and the public develop a decision-making process for solving point and
nonpoint source pollution problems to meet the water quality goals of
the Act.
B. Management Priorities
The three highest management priorities for the WQM program in FY
81-85 are improved program management, completion of the 208 grant program,
-------
and building and transferring an information base for nonpoint source control.
Improved Program Management
In FY 81 and beyond, EPA will continue several management activities
initiated in FY 79 and 80, and pursue some new activities which will also
result in improved program management. Some examples are establishment
of a work group to review the 106 program, nationwide follow-up on evalua-
tions of EPA Regional Office management, better integration and coordination
through the State/EPA Agreements, and development of a management information
system to evaluate national problem-solving projects and WQM policies.
Completion of the 208 Grant Program
As State and areawide agencies move from nonpoint source planning into
nonpoint source control programs, it is important for EPA to move away from
an individual planning grant program (i.e., 208) into a consolidated pro-
cess which combines all the aspects of the overall problem-solving process.
The WQM program has made much progress in cleaning up the nation's waters
and, in FY 81-83, will continue to fill gaps in 208 plans, build up the
technical base, and move to implementation of controls.
Given adequate funding, EPA anticipates completion of the 208 grant
program in FY 83. To ensure that WQM activities continue after FY 83,
however, EPA is already beginning to develop recommendations for a re-
structured WQM program, which will be closely coordinated with the up-coming
1990 construction grants strategy. Full public participation will be a
critical aspect of the development of a restructured program.
Building and Transferring a
NPS Information Base
The WQM program will avoid duplication of effort and save time and
expense for State and local governments by providing reliable information
from one area to another and helping to adapt this information to local
situations. Information transfer will not be limited to technical
information, but will also include institutional and financial aspects.
Oversight of the information transfer efforts is the responsibility
of the Water Planning Division, which will begin to take several actions
during FY 80 and 81 to enhance the prospects for successful transfer.
EPA anticipates that transfer of information will increase steadily in
FY 81-83.
B. State Program Priorities
The status of the 106 State program grants is becoming increasingly
important. Funding from the Congress is down from past levels and, in
some States, State funding is also dwindling. Inflation is also causing
problems. While funding is sagging, needs for State programs are increasing,
since they have several new responsibilities. Therefore, this FY 81
Baseline Strategy presents priorities within several broad 106 eligibilities
-------
as a partial guide for negotiating State work programs. For more complete
information on State program priorities, readers should also see the Agency
Operating Year Guidance for FY 1981, to be published in February, 1980.
C. National 208 Priorities
The national priorities for 208 grants are nonpoint source problems,
with the greatest emphasis on urban storm runoff, agriculture, and ground
water contamination. In addition, EPA will use 208 grants to address the
problem of a lack of financial and managerial techniques to implement WQM
plans. The WQM program also supports Regional, State, or local nonpoint
source priorities which differ from the national prioritites if they will
lead to implementation and have a major impact on water quality. (The
strategy discusses each major priority problem in detail.)
III. FUNDING
A. Description of Sources
The strategy presents a table summarizing each of the major grant
sources for the WQM process. In addition to Federal grants administered
by EPA, State and local governments and other Federal agencies also con-
tribute to the WQM program.
B. WQM Funding Po1icies--FY 81 and Beyond
The strategy presents an overview of the WQM funding policies. There
are no major changes in the funding policy from the FY 80 Baseline Strategy.
However, EPA will shortly begin to work with a committee of State repre-
sentatives to develop recommendations for possibly changing the section 106
management policies and allocation formula for FY 82.
C. Projected Funding—FY 81-85
Future funding data is sketchy and subject to change. Nevertheless,
an attempt to project funding levels is necessary. For FY 81, the section
106 appropriation should be approximately $48.7 million and the 208 app-
ropriation approximately $34 million, based on the President's budget for
FY 81. (Regional 208 targets and State 106 targets are presented, for
program planning purposes only.) EPA anticipates no 208 funding after
FY 83, assuming the Congress provides full funding until then.
IV. EMERGING POLICY ISSUES
This section of the strategy presents four discussions of emerging
policy issues for the WQM program. These are new or cross-cutting policies
which relate to the overall WQM strategy. The four issue areas are (1)
coordination of 106 and 208 grants; (2) water quality, quantity, and
111
-------
conservation; (3) coordination of the 201 and 208 planning programs; and
(4) coordination of WQM and other EPA ground water activities.
V. 208 OBJECTIVES
This section of the strategy gives the participants in the WQM program
a firm idea of EPA's expectations for FY 80-85 in the highest priority non-
point source problem areas. For each problem, the strategy includes a state-
ment of the overall objective, a set of related "givens", a list of on-going
major projects, and detailed objectives in a matrix format. The matrices
show specific concrete targets or sub-objectives which will contribute to
the attainment of the overall objectives.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Executive Summary
I. Introduction
A. Purpose 1
B. Background 1
II. Goal and Priorities.
A. Goal 5
B. Management Priorities 5
— improved program management 5
—completion of the 208 grant program 6
—building and transferring a nonpoint
source information base 10
C. State Program Priorities 11
D. National 208 Priorities 13
--urban storm runoff 14
--agriculture/silviculture 15
—ground water contamination 16
--financial management of nonpoint source controls 18
—other 208 priorities 18
III. Funding 21
A. Description of Sources 21
B. WQM Funding Policies—FY 81 and Beyond 21
C. Projected Funding 29
IV. Emerging Policy Issues 31
A. Coordination of 106 and 208 Grants 31
B. Water Quality, Quantity, and Conservation 31
C. Coordination of 201 and 208 Programs 32
D. Coordination of WQM and Other Agency Ground
Water Activities 34
V. 208 Objectives 35
Appendices 52
References 55
-------
TABLES
Page
Table I Tentative Milestones for the Development
of a Restructured WQM Program 8
Table II Historic Funding—FY 72-80 22
Table III Funding for Water Quality Management 23
Table IV State 106 Targets for FY 81 26
Table V Regional 208 Targets for FY 81 27
FIGURES
Figure I Schematic Summary of Overall Problem-Solving
Process for Water Quality Problems 12
Figure II WQM Policy Development Time-Line. 30
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose
The purpose of this WQM five-year strategy is to provide long-range
direction for the water quality management (WQM) program to assist the EPA
Regions, States, areawide agencies, and the participating public with program
planning in FY 81 and beyond. The Water Planning Division (WPD) has initiated
an annual policy development process which includes a problem assessment,
strategy, and work program, similar to the process required of the States
by the WQM regulations [1].* The strategy's long-term perspective will
contribute to the development of State strategies, work plans, and State/EPA
Agreements.
The strategy will also provide EPA management, the Congress, the Admini-
stration, and the public with descriptions of immediate and long-term needs
and program directions to assist in policy, resource, and funding decisions.
Finally, the strategy will place the WPD work program [2] and the Supplemental
WQM Guidance [3] in a long-range policy framework, allowing program partici-
pants to anticipate and deal with changes, thus avoiding crisis planning and
management.
The strategy addresses program goals, priorities, funding, issues, and
objectives for the baseline year and the subsequent four years. (Thus, this
strategy is the "FY 81 Baseline Strategy," next year's is the "FY 82 Baseline
Strategy" and so on.) It affects primarily those in the EPA Regions, States,
and designated areawide agencies who manage the WQM program. It is not a
comprehensive water quality strategy, since its focus is on WQM activities
defined by sections 106, 208, and 303(e) of the Clean Water Act. The strategy
discusses some related programs, such as construction grants, monitoring,
water quality standards, and enforcement but does not set policy for these
programs.
B. Background
The goal of the WQM program is to assist State and local agencies and the
public develop a decision-making process for solving point and nonpoint source
pollution problems to meet the water quality goals of the Act. To accomplish
this goal, EPA has awarded grants under sections 106 and 208 to State, inter-
state, and areawide agencies totalling approximately $700 million.
Since the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972, EPA has made visible
progress toward meeting the clean water goals of the Act and achieving the
clean-up of the Nation's waters. One area in which progress is evident is
* This strategy makes frequent reference to legislation, EPA regulations,
guidance documents, and other related documents. For convenience, a list
of references is attached. Where the text refers to one of these documents,
the number of the reference appears in brackets. In addition, a list of
abbreviations used in this strategy is included in Appendix III.
-------
in preparation of initial State and areawide 208 plans, which lay the ground-
work for continuing efforts in water quality management. Of the 225 agencies
which received grants in FY 74-76 to prepare initial plans, 154 had obtained
State certification and 116 had obtained EPA approval as of January 7, 1980.
Now that most initial planning is complete, EPA, the States, and the
areawide agencies must begin to implement the decisions made in the planning
process through section 201 construction grants, section 106 State program
grants, the NPDES permit program, the section 205(g) construction management
assistance program, and other implementation-oriented programs. Since there
are still gaps in the plans, especially for nonpoint source controls, EPA
will also continue to use the 208 grant program to fill important gaps and
to augment the existing point source control framework with an equally complete
nonpoint source framework. Based on the problems States and areawide agencies
identified in their initial plans, the highest nonpoint source priorities are
urban runoff, agriculture, and ground water contamination.
Based on our interpretations of the legislation, the legislative history,
and sessions on Capitol Hill in which EPA officials testified on the program,
the Congress does not intend the 208 grant program to provide perpetual Federal
support for planning. To obtain funding from the Congress and the Office of
Management and Budget in FY 80 and beyond, EPA made commitments to manage the
208 grant program more aggressively and to pursue solutions to nonpoint source
problems through an emphasis on problem-solving projects. With improved pro-
gram management and a focus on nonpoint sources in FY 81-83, EPA plans to
bring about the orderly phase-out of the 208 grant program, and replace it
with a restructured WQM program in FY 83 and beyond.
In the next few years, as EPA implements the strategy herein, it will
stress three basic principles to ensure the success of the program. First,
EPA will continue to stress problem-solving, with an emphasis on putting
operational control programs in place. Second, EPA will build an information
base which will provide future grantees with information they need to control
nonpoint sources effectively and efficiently. Third, EPA will develop and
implement a management program to maximize the effectiveness of limited WQM
resources.
EPA Headquarters oversees the management of the national WQM program by
developing national policy and management procedures, assisting Regions with
management and technical functions, and representing the WQM program to the-
Administration and the Congress. The Regional Offices negotiate customized
work programs for State water quality programs, provide technical assistance
and evaluate the progress the States make against their work programs. The
Regions also negotiate the location and direction of 208-funded projects with
the States and designated areawide agencies, approve 208 work programs, fund
and manage the projects, and approve changes in WQM plans that may result.
Working with the Regional Offices, the States negotiate their State work
programs (which ultimately are part of their State/EPA Agreements) and
conduct State programs supported by 106 grants in such areas as monitoring,
-------
enforcement, permitting, and planning. With respect to section 208 grants,
the States set the overall policy framework, conduct WQM planning in non-
designated areas, oversee the work of the areawide agencies, and certify WQM .
plans before submitting them to EPA for approval.
The areawide agencies which the Governors designated to conduct areawide
planning under section 208 conduct many necessary problem-solving projects
in their areas and identify responsible units of government to implement solu-
tions. The areawide agencies do not receive 106 funds as the States do, but
the States can pass through 106 funds—or other CWA funds — to perform certain
specified tasks.
In the last few years, EPA has made many significant accomplishments
within the WQM program which set the stage for this strategy. Some of these
accomplishments are:
-- EPA has made significant improvements in the management of the
WQM program through development of new regulations, strategies,
management procedures, and policy statements; establishment of
management evaluation processes; initiation of a WQM needs assess-
ment; and provision of technical assistance on key projects.
-- EPA has. initiated, under the 208 grant program, 30 Nationwide Urban
Runoff Program (NURP) projects to establish at the local level the
connection between planning and implementation, to determine the
degree of the urban storm runoff problem nationwide and the effec-
tiveness of best management practices (BMPs), and to make a major
report to Congress in 1983 on the Federal role in nonpoint source
implementation.
-- Working with USDA, EPA in 1978 initiated seven projects to carry
out accelerated programs for controlling agricultural pollution,
measuring the results, and providing information that is now
lacking. EPA is also working with USDA on the management of over
20 other special national agricultural problem-solving projects
started in 1979 testing BMP's for water quality control, and the
establishment of the Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP) for agri-
cultural cost-sharing in 1980.
-- EPA has signed an inter-agency agreement with the Forest Service
supporting a national training program for loggers and operators
of timber lands [4]. EPA is also cooperating with the USFS on
integrating State forest resource planning with WQM planning and
utilizing resources such as the Forest Incentive Program (FIP)
to implement 208 plans.
-- The WQM program has saved more money by reducing the costs of pro-
posed municipal waste treatment facilities through 208 planning
than the Congress has appropriated for section 208 to date.
-- As part of a broad Agency initiative to ensure thorough cost-effective
analysis of advanced waste treatment (AWT) plants, EPA has used
FY 78 and 79 208 grants to establish approximately 10 prototype
-------
projects related to improved waste load allocation methods and
the role of nonpoint source in AWT decision-making. (See
Appendix I for a list of AWT projects.)
To help States and communities identify the most cost-effective
approaches to implementing WQM programs and the means to pay
for them, EPA has established a Financial Management Assistance
Program. The program is providing technical assistance to
10-20 prototype agencies and is developing fiscal tools and
techniques. (See Appendix II for a list of FMAP projects.)
WPD has contracted with a national team of ground water technical
experts to assist in the development of agency and WQM ground water
strategies, to assist in the development and implementation of ground
water projects at Regional Office request, and to provide technical
assistance as necessary.
-------
II. GOALS AND PRIORITIES
A. Goal
The goal of the WQM program is to assist State and local agencies and
the public develop a decision-making process for solving point and nonpoint
source pollution problems to meet the water quality goals of the Act.
B. Management Priorities
This strategy is primarily concerned with the management of two types of
grants under the Clean Water Act: section 106 State program grants and section
208 waste treatment management grants. EPA manages these grants together under
the WQM program, and has issued guidance [3] on management procedures.
The FY 80 Baseline WQM Strategy [5] introduced two management priorities
for the WQM program: improved program management and completion of the 208
grant program. This year, EPA continues its emphasis on these two areas,
and introduces another WQM management priority—building and transferring an
information base for solving nonpoint source problems. Thus, the following
items are high management priorities for the WQM program in the FY 81-85
period:
Improved Program Management
To ensure that the WQM program makes the most efficient use of the funds
devoted to it, EPA has initiated a more active, rather than reactive,
management approach for the WQM program. In FY 79 and 80, EPA improved
program management with:
-- participation of EPA Regions, States, areawide agencies, and the
public in annual State/EPA Agreements which coordinate and integrate
programs, identify high-priority problems, lay out approaches, and
assign responsibilities
-- use of problem-specific technical assistance contracts to fill critical
gaps in 208 plans with experts on ground water, urban runoff, and
advanced municipal treatment; initiation of a Financial Management
Assistance Program (FMAP) to help States and localities identify
costs and approaches
-- oversight of 208 and 106 grant programs with particular emphasis on
improved grant management in terms of integration, accountability
and attention to priorities
-- increased emphasis on the need to develop required public participation
work plans in conjunction with State and areawide work plans
-- development of management strategies and periodic management reviews;
implementation of a WQM management evaluation process
-------
-- establishment of a funding policy for 106 and 208 grants in which
grants are negotiated based on documented needs
-- review in Headquarters of State/EPA Agreements and State and areawide
work programs to gain insight into where agencies are using funds,
where they are integrating programs, and how they are implementing
national policies
-- assessment of the five-year costs of planning and administering
solutions to point and nonpoint source water quality problems for
analysis of priorities, strategic planning, and budget justifications
-- annual publication of a national WQM strategy and guidance documents
for the management of the WQM program
In FY 81 and beyond, EPA will continue these management activities and
pursue new activities which will result in improved program management. Some
examples are:
-- establishment of a work group to review the 106 program
-- nationwide follow-up on Regional management evaluations
— broader program integration and coordination through annual State/EPA
Agreements
-- development of a management information system to evaluate national
problem-solving projects and WQM policies
— more timely publication of WQM strategies and guidance to coincide
with Regional and State program planning cycles
The WQM regulations [1] and the Supplemental WQM Guidance [3] present
details on procedures participants in the WQM program should observe to improve
the management of the program. See also the funding policies in Section III,
which follows, for an explanation of their role in program management.
Completion of the 208 Grant Program
The FY 80 strategy introduced the concept of the orderly completion of
the 208 grant portion of the WQM program, consistent with both administration
policy and legislative intent.
As State and areawide agencies move from NPS planning to NPS control
programs in the near future, it is important for EPA to move away from an
individual planning grant program like 208 into a consolidated WQM process
which inter-relates all the aspects of the problem-solving process—water
quality standards, problem assessment, planning, management, evaluation, and
enforcement.
Because the initial 208 plans had a bias toward point source problems
resulting in a fairly complete point source control framework, and because
most of the remaining gaps in the plans involve nonpoint sources, part of
EPA's strategy is to build a strong technical base for nonpoint source control
before 208 grants are phased out. This information base will serve as the
-------
basis of a restructured program in the future. Only with a firm technical
foundation can the country proceed to implement nonpoint source controls
without waste and duplication of effort.
The Concept. The WQM program has made much progress in cleaning up the
Nation's waters. The program has brought about documented water quality
improvements and cost savings, and will do more as additional WQM plans enter
the implementation stage. In FY 81-83, States and areawide agencies will
continue the job of filling the important gaps in their 208 plans, building up
the technical base, and moving to implementation of controls. The national
policy of the 208 grant program is to direct attention to nonpoint source
problems, especially urban runoff, agricultural pollution, and ground water
contamination.
Given adequate funding (approximately $50M/year), EPA anticipates completion
of the 208 grant program in FY 83, and no 208 grants after FY 83. This will
represent the successful completion of a framework for solving most water quality
problems. As this planning is completed, the program focuses its attention on
implementing solutions and facing new problems which existing plans don't address.
Planning in FY 81-83. Through its section 208 funding policy, EPA has
emphasized the use of site-specific problem-solving projects to develop cost
effective controls for nonpoint source problems. The 208 funding emphasis
is on good, implementable projects which will solve water quality problems
and, at the same time, provide a base from which to develop and implement solu-
tions nationwide. Transfer of the lessons learned in these problem-solving
projects is a crucial aspect of the strategy and part of a separate management
priority in FY 81 and beyond. (See below.)
The Restructured Program. In addition to completing the problem-solving
projects in FY 81-83 and transferring the results to other areas with similar
problems, EPA is beginning in FY 80 to develop recommendations for a restruc-
tured WQM program. EPA recognizes the need for better planning and management,
and for coordination and integration of NPS controls with the point source
program, and with programs under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,
the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Clean Air Act. EPA will coordinate develop-
ment of the restructured WQM program with another EPA priority effort—the
long-term "1990" construction grants strategy to ensure a consistent approach
to the total water quality problem. Data from the WQM needs assessment on
Federal and State funding requirements over the next five years will also con-
tribute to the recommendations.
EPA has an obligation to encourage input into the design of the restruc-
tured program from States, areawide agencies, local agencies, and the public.
To initiate the collection of ideas from these sources, EPA will provide
several opportunities in FY 80 and beyond for such participation. A list of
tentative milestones for developing a restructured program appears in Table I.
After Completion. After FY 83, although EPA does not anticipate awarding
208 grants, there will still be a WQM program and a need for planning and
decision-making as States, areawide agencies, and local governments continue
-------
TABLE I
Tentative Milestones for Development of a
Restructured WQM Program
FY Quarter Activity
1980 3 EPA HQ participates in CWA reauthorization hearings
WPD circulates a preliminary discussion paper on the
restructured program to EPA Regions, Ad Hoc Advisors
Participants in the WQM program discuss the restruc-
tured program at a national WQM meeting in Atlanta,
Ga.
4 As follow-up to the national meeting, WPD staff
prepares a detailed discussion paper on the
restructured program working with EPA Regions and
Ad Hoc Advisors.
1981 1 WPD publishes an options paper on the restructured
program in the Federal Register and announces a set
of public meetings at various cities to obtain
feedback
2/3 EPA conducts public meetings to obtain feedback,
works with target interest groups, and publishes
a report on results of the meetings
4 EPA proposes framework of the restructured WQM
program
1982 1 Participants in WQM program review and comment on
the proposed framework
2 EPA provides first official positions on the restruc-
tured program in the FY 83 Baseline WQM Strategy and
the FY 84 budget preview
3/4 This would be a period of advocacy for, and implemen-
tation of, the restructured program. Possible activi-
1983 1 ties during this period are a legislative initiative,
regulatory changes, and issuance of "transition"
guidance.
8
-------
FY Quarter Activity
1983 2 EPA further defines the restructured program in the
FY 84 agency guidance and WQM strategy (or its
equivalent) and the FY 85 budget preview
3/4 EPA issues detailed program guidance for operations
of NPS control programs after completion of 208
grant program. This is the last scheduled FY for
208 grants.
-------
to manage point and nonpoint sources. The Water Planning Division will issue
guidance and assistance in advance of the completion date to provide that
completion of 208 planning grants occurs smoothly, and that EPA, States, and
local governments continue to support effective problem-solving activities
after FY 83.
EPA estimates full funding needs for the 208 grant program through FY 83
at approximately $50 million per year. If the 208 program does not receive
full funding through FY 83, EPA has a fall-back strategy: First, with less
208 funding EPA would set realistic priorities in the annual budget process
to address the most critical NPS needs. Second, EPA would attempt to extend
completion past FY 83 if necessary to counter lower funding.
Building and Transferring an Information Base
for Nonpoint Source Control
Building an information base for nonpoint source control is one of the
cornerstones of the WQM five-year strategy, especially documenting and
transferring the findings of the various problem-solving projects funded
with section 208 grants. Point source data and controls are relatively
well-understood. Many initial 208 plans contributed to building this tech-
nical base. Since the 208 emphasis is now on nonpoint sources, 106, 201 and
205(g) funds will fill gaps in the point source data base as appropriate.
The WQM program will avoid duplication in nonpoint source planning efforts
and save time and expense for State and local governments by providing
reliable information from one area to another and helping adapt it to local
situations. To be successful this information transfer must not be limited to
technical exchange only. Experiences with institutional and financial aspects
combined with technical data will produce the most effective information.
An example of the need for this type of transfer can be found in the
Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) which is a major part of the 208 grant
program. Over 150 of the initial WQM plans which State and areawide agencies
prepared identified urban storm runoff as a water quality problem. To provide
follow-up grants to each of these agencies would result in duplication of
effort in areas with similar problems and settings to develop operational
control programs. Therefore, EPA and the WQM agencies selected 30 areas to
continue with intensive urban runoff projects. Once the results of these projects
are in, the other 120 areas with runoff problems can learn from their problems
and successes. Also, cause-and-effect data from the 30 areas can be used to
guide cause-and-effect determinations in the remaining areas without engaging in
expensive comprehensive monitoring. EPA plans to use 208 funds in FY 81-83 to
assist in the application of NURP findings in the 120 non-NURP areas.
Oversight of information transfer efforts is the responsibility of the
Water Planning Division. To enhance its success, WPD will (1) develop and
maintain an information system for handling transferable technical information,
(2) prepare summaries of the results of problem-solving projects, (3) utilize
the resources of the technical assistance contracts for ground water, urban
storm runoff, and municipal advanced waste treatment along with the Financial
10
-------
Management Assistance Project to help transfer information to agencies with
specific needs, (4) hold a national meeting for all WQM participants to
discuss transferable results and (5) conduct training courses throughout the
country. The information base will gain depth as the many problem-solving
projects near completion. Thus, EPA anticipates that transfer of information
will increase steadily in FY 81-83. (For lists of major active 208 problem-
solving projects, see Section V, Objectives.)
C. State Program Priorities
In general, the WQM program must develop a data base relating nonpoint
sources and controls to the achievement of water quality standards and goals.
EPA must assure that, after completion of the 208 grants, an adequate infor-
mation base exists to allow States and other agencies to meet their water
quality goals. State program grants under section 106 support a wide range
of activities, such as monitoring, permits, enforcement, planning, and point
source management. Through these activities, the 106 grants accomplish
several major portions of the overall WQM process, including problem assess-
ment, implementation of control programs, and evaluation.
Priorities for State programs funded under 106 have traditionally been
negotiated by the Regions and States in the process of annual work program
development. EPA Headquarters issues annual State program guidance [6] to
be used in these negotiations. (For a schematic representation of the overall
problem-solving process, see Figure I.)
Now, the status of the 106 program is becoming increasingly important.
Funding from the Congress is down from past levels, and in some States
funding is dwindling. Inflation is also causing problems for 106-funded State
programs.
While funding is sagging, needs for State programs are up, since they
have new responsibilities in such areas as toxic NPDES permitting, nonpoint
source management, and emergency response. Increased State toxics monitoring
capability is also necessary to support these new responsibilities. Therefore,
this FY 81 Baseline Strategy recognizes priorities within several broad 106
eligibility categories as a partial guide for negotiating State work programs.
For more complete information on State program priorities, see the Agency
Operating Year Guidance for FY 1981.
Publicly-Owned T re a tmen t Works. In States with section 205(g) delegations,
the 205(g) grant will normally handle tasks closely related to the management
of the construction grants process. In other States, 106 grants support this
type of activity. States should maximize the use of 205(g) funds so that a
minimum of 106 funds are needed for construction grants management. One major
objective of management of POTWs under section 106 is to coordinate permit,
enforcement, and construction grant activities of each State under section 301(i)
of the Clean Water Act.
Monitoring. In general, States should use 106 funds to develop full basic
water monitoring programs in accordance with EPA guidance [7]. Specially, the
States should manage a set of ambient "core" monitoring stations, implement
11
-------
Figure I
SCHEMATIC SUMMARY OF
OVERALL PROBLEM-SOLVING PROCESS
FOR WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS
Defining Problems
1. problem assessment
2. identification of priority
problems
3. stream segment
classification
4. water quality standards
Developing Solutions
1. waste load allocations
2. permit conditions
3. planning for municipal
systems
4. nonpoint source control-
requirements
Implementing Solutions
1. agreements on instit-
utional responsibility
2. State and local
budget processes
3. permit issuance and
enforcement
4. other regulatory and
non^regulatory pgrms
5. structural solutions
6. cost sharing for
agriculture
7. sanctions and
incentives
Evaluating Progress
1. evaluating outputs
2. evaluating water quality
3. evaluating trends
4. evaluating institutional
aspects
12
-------
quality assurance requirements, conduct intensive surveys and submit abstracts
to the Regional Offices, increase toxic analytic capabilities, place monitoring
data in STORE! or a compatible format, conduct effluent monitoring activities,
encourage the States to implement biological monitoring programs, and prepare
305(b) reports in even-numbered years.
A new activity which States and Regions are conducting in FY 81 and beyond
is follow-up monitoring and analysis recommended in the dilution studies for
toxic pollutants under the terms of paragraph 12 of the NRDC consent decree [8].
Permits and Enforcement. In this program area, States with NPDES
authority should place priority on issuing the second round of industrial
permits to include BCT and BAT provisions. The States should also prepare
quarterly non-compliance reports and pursue general permit programs for
certain point sources such as non-contaminated stormwater discharges. Other
important activities in this area are State review of requests for variances
under sections 301 and 316 of the Act and development and administration of
State pretreatment programs under the national pretreatment regulations in
40 CFR Part 403 [9].
Hater Quality Standards. On a case-by-case basis, States should
incorporate toxic parameters in their once-every-three-year reviews and
revisions of water quality standards, including parameters which address toxic
contributions from nonpoint sources such as pesticides and metals.
Emergency Response. Section 504(b) of the Clean Water Act creates several
State requirements for dealing with environmental emergencies. However, the
Administration has proposed "Superfund" legislation which would duplicate the
provisions of 504(b). Until this legislation is acted upon, the States should
make provisions for emergency response to the satisfaction of their Regional
Administrator, and develop necessary legal authority. Each State's emergency
response program should include contingency plans, necessary response capability,
and programs to prevent emergencies from occurring.
Nonpoint Source Management. As State 208 plans progress through the
certification and approval process, States are developing new and expanded
nonpoint source control programs, which they may use 106 funds to support.
They may also use 106 funds to develop nonpoint source problem assessments
focusing on impaired uses, obvious problems, and violations of water quality
standards.
D. National 208 Priorities
Section 208 of the Clean Water Act gives EPA a broad mandate to assist
State and local governments develop solutions to a range of point and non-
point source problems. Because it will take many years and resources to
solve all the problems the Act mentions in section 208, it has long been EPA
policy that WQM plans, which provide the framework for future actions, focus
on key water quality problems, and provide all the necessary information to
ensure that plan implementation will occur.
13
-------
In FY 80, EPA introduced national 208 funding priorities, based on its
analyses of the important gaps in the initial plans and the ability of EPA and
other Federal and State programs to address them. The national priorities for
208 grants are nonpoint source problems, with the greatest emphasis on urban
storm runoff, agriculture, and ground water contamination. In addition, EPA
will use 208 grants to address the persistent problem of a lack of financial
and managerial techniques to implement approved 208 plans.
The problem priorities in this strategy have changed little from the
FY 80 Baseline Strategy [5], although this strategy does clarify them. In
addition, EPA has developed specific WQM strategies for ground water [10] and
agriculture [11] and is developing a small alternative wastewater systems strategy
[12]. The order in which this strategy lists the 208 priorities does not
necessarily indicate their relative priority. Since conditions vary from Region
to Region, State to State, and locality to locality, nonpoint source priorities
may vary. The WQM program supports Regional, State, or local nonpoint source
priorities which differ from the national priorities if they will lead to
implementation and have a major impact on water quality.
Urban Storm Runoff
Urban runoff is a problem of increasing severity. Urbanization changes
hydrologic cycles and expands impervious areas. Runoff flowing through the
urban environment flushes atomospheric fallout, traffic-related deposits,
litter, and construction debris into receiving waters. Nationwide, over 50
percent of the river basins are affected by urban runoff. The percentage
is highest (70 percent) in the Northeast and lowest (23 percent) in the
Southwest and Northwest.
Although many initial 208 plans identified urban runoff as either a known
or suspected important cause of water quality problems, there is much reluctance
to implement controls. The reasons are several: (1) There is an absence of
clear problem definition. The exact role of urban runoff as a major cause of
water quality problems remains uncertain despite the fact that 208 plans
developed considerable information. This is partly because of interference
from other sources and the complex relationships within receiving waters. (2)
There is uncertainty surrounding the costs and effectiveness of controls, which
tend either to be new or special applications of conventional practices used
for other purposes. State and local officials are understandably reluctant to
invest large amounts of time and money in controls which may not perform as
hoped. (3) There are basic data deficiencies on sources, transport mechanisms,
and receiving water characteristics.
Given these barriers to implementation, the WQM program has initiated
a Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) to establish a consistent data base
on urban nonpoint source water quality impacts and to test controls in different
geographic settings to find a set of transferable cost-effective controls, or
best management practices (BMPs). During the last two years, EPA, the States,
and areawide agencies selected 30 areas to develop individual implementation
plans to solve problems in their areas and to transfer this knowledge to other
areas where appropriate. EPA has provided assistance to NURP projects in
developing their work plans and will award remaining grants for the full
three year period of most of the projects in FY 80.
Now that the projects are selected and underway, EPA will provide tech-
nical and management assistance to each project for commumication of experiences,
sharing of data, and transfer of lessons learned. Information, transfer in some
14
-------
cases will begin as early as FY 81. During the three-year period of the NURP
projects, EPA will annually evaluate the program to assess cause-and-effect
relationships; the practical applicability of control measures; and the legal,
institutional, and financial implications of implementing controls. This
evaluation will be forwarded to Congress in an interim report in 1981 and a
final report in 1983. The reports will cover known problem areas and make
recommendations on how to proceed with implementation.
Agriculture (and Silviculture)
Agricultural activities are the most widespread cause of nonpoint source
problems, affecting over two thirds of the river basins in the country. The
regions most affected by agricultural nonpoint source pollution are the North
Central, South Central, Southwest, and Island regions. Agricultural pollution
can come from either runoff, ground water percolation or irrigation return flows.
Over fifty percent of the nation's total man-caused sediment load is from
agriculture.
EPA and USDA are cooperating on selecting, funding, and managing many
projects intended to assist farmers in implementing water quality oriented
BMPs. EPA and USDA initiated a Model Implementation Program (MIP) in seven
agricultural areas to test BMPs, determine farmers' attitudes, and document
costs. In addition, twenty-one Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP)
special water quality studies are underway. The MIP projects will be complete
by September 1981 and the ACP projects by approximately September 1982.
Given these existing agricultural projects, EPA will continue to emphasize
problem-solving projects and transfer of results in FY 81 and beyond. In FY 80
and 81, EPA will select a number of agricultural water quality projects for
intensive evaluation of the effects of BMPs on water quality. These projects
will generally be either MIP or ACP projects to which EPA will add funding for
intensive monitoring and evaluation (M&E). In addition to these intensive
projects, EPA will fund other agricultural projects in FY 81 and beyond geared
toward establishment of operational control programs in known problem areas.
These projects generally include some non-intensive monitoring and certain
educational activities. Transfer of the findings from all agricultural projects
is a key to implementing agricultural controls nationwide and in some cases
could begin in FY 81.
EPA is currently participating in a new demonstration implementation program
for controlling rural nonpoint source pollution, the Rural Clean Water Program
(RCWP). Congress recently appropriated $50 million of FY 80 funds for an
experimental RCWP. Under the 1980 RCWP, USDA will cost share the application of
BMPs by owners or operators of rural lands if the BMPs are contained in "certified
and approved WQM plans. The RCWP projects are of a three-to-ten year duration
and are administered by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
(ASCS), USDA. Applications for RCWP grants already submitted in August 1979
will be used in selecting projects for funding.
Si 1vicultural activities, unlike the agricultural activities described
above, are not a widespread contributor to nonpoint source pollution. However,
silvicultural activities do erode the land in certain regions, causing soil loss
15
-------
and water quality problems. There is a clear need to maintain high-quality
waters in forested regions. Otherwise, water supply costs would increase and
cold water fisheries would suffer. Many major cities, both in the East and
West, have municipal water supplies located in forested areas. Trout and
salmon fisheries depend on high-quality water from forested watersheds.
Sediment is the primary problem from silviculture, with sediment loss
from forest lands estimated at less than four percent of the total man-made
sediment in the nation's waters. Chemical runoff from forest lands is a loca-
lized problem, since less than one percent of our forests receive chemical
treatment each year.
EPA's overall strategy for controlling silviculture nonpoint source pollu-
tion is to (1) implement the February, 1979 agreement [4] with the Forest
Service, which provides the mechanism for the two agencies to work together
to achieve common goals, (2) implement BMP's contained in certified
and approved WQM plans, using available assistance programs (FIP, ACP), and
(3) continue to develop the technical and institutional bases for controls
through problem-solving projects. In FY 80, EPA plans to select three forestry
programs which involve the integration and implementation of State forest
resource plans and WQM plans for intensive monitoring and evaluation.
EPA's role will be largely one of providing expert technical and financial
management assistance for agencies addressing silviculture nonpoint source
problems. EPA is cooperating with USDA on many silviculture projects, such as
the State Forest Resource Programs, National Forest Land Management Planning
projects, Forest Incentive Program (FIP) projects, and Agricultural Conservation
Program (ACP) projects.
Ground Water Contamination
In general, ground water is a high-quality, low-cost, readily-available
source of drinking water. Half the population of the U.S. gets its drinking
water wholly or in part from underground sources, and the use of ground water
increases by several percent each year. Unfortunately, waste disposal practices
and agricultural practices, among others, have affected both the quality and
availability of ground water. The potential for contamination increases with
demand.
Ground water is especially important in rural areas, where 96 percent
of the households are supplied by wells subject to few, if any, water quality
safeguards. Two thirds of all ground water used is for irrigation, and over
60 percent of all the water consumed by livestock is ground water. Nearly one
quarter of all the water used in this country is ground water, yet a quarter of
that amount is mined from aquifers that cannot be recharged.
The sources of ground water pollution are generally nonpoint sources such
as septic systems, landfills, agricultural practices, lagoons and industrial
impoundments, and disposal wells. The contaminants involved include salts,
heavy metals, nitrates, complex organic compounds, and radioactive materials.
16
-------
Perhaps the most alarming aspect of ground water contamination is that
removing the source of the contamination does not clean up the aquifer.
Contamination may rule out desired uses of an aquifer for decades or centuries
since the natural clean-up processes that occur in surface water do not take
place underground. Clean-up techniques, such as treatment at the well head,
are limited in their use and are expensive. Ground water pollution often goes
undetected since routine monitoring of aquifers is difficult and expensive.
Almost every known instance of ground water contamination has been discovered
only after a drinking water source was affected.
As with nonpoint sources in general, the WQM program is in a unique position
to effect a systematic approach to the protection of ground water quality.
However, combined programs at the State level under various of EPA's authorities
(RCRA, SDWA, CWA) are needed to establish effective ground water management
programs. EPA's Office of Drinking Water is responsible for the Underground
Injection Control program; a survey of pits, ponds, and lagoons; and the desig-
nation of sole source aquifers. The Office of Solid Waste is responsible for
developing criteria for landfills, the disposal of hazardous wastes, and a
survey of open dumps. The WQM program can both coordinate these activities
where ground water quality problems exist to develop statewide strategies, and
supplement such related efforts as the location of new hazardous waste sites
under RCRA.
The WQM strategy for protection of ground water quality [10] has three
elements. First, Headquarters, the Regions, States, and areawide agencies
are initiating 20 intensive ground water protection projects, ten in FY 80
and ten in FY 81. EPA will provide technical assistance and track the progress
of these projects, which are being selected with national transferability of
results in mind. Expert contractors are assisting these 20 projects to help
develop operational control programs and communicate the results to other areas
as necessary.
Second, in addition to the 20 intensive projects, State and areawide agencies
will undertake other ground water projects in FY 81 and beyond with 208 funds.
These projects will lead to implementation of operational control programs in
areas with known problems. Again, Water Planning Division and its contractors
will provide assistance, as time and resources permit, for the development and
refinement of work programs, project management, and evaluation of results.
Finally, to coordinate the authorities of the Clean Water Act, the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act as they affect
ground water, EPA has formed a ground water task force. The task force, with
members from the Office of Water and Waste Management, the Office of Research
and Development, the Office of Planning and Management, and the Regional Offices
will use the results of the 208-funded projects and be responsible for coordi-
nating development of a national ground water policy. (For details on how the
WQM ground water strategy relates 'to the work of the Agency ground water task
force see the discussion in Section IV.)
17
-------
Financial Management Assistance
One of the inherent problems associated with nonpoint source control has
been the lack of the institutional, financial and managerial techniques needed
to implement 208 plans. In essence, this is because highly centralized govern-
mental structures have difficulty responding to problems that are individualized
and scattered. This has challenged the WQM program to be creative in developing
the methods and processes needed to accomplish the program's objectives. The
first objective of the WQM program in this area is to require all State and
areawide agency work plans to examine the fiscal aspects of implementation. In
support of the objective EPA will provide the necessary technical assistance
and, as in other areas, take responsibility for the transfer of successful
efforts.
EPA's Financial Management Assistance Program (FMAP) is designed (1) to
provide on-going local WQM planning efforts specialized assistance on financial
and management issues, (2) to develop from these assistance projects a set of
WQM implementation techniques, and (3) as they are developed, to make these
implementation techniques quickly available to the broadest possible spectrum
of local government officials. FMAP is in practice a joint venture of EPA
Headquarters and Regional office staffs to expand technical assistance available
to State and local governments.
In FY 1979, ten WQM projects in various locations across the country were
selected for FMAP assistance. In each case, an FMAP contractor was assigned
to work through the EPA Region in providing technical assistance to local
officials. This initial set of FMAP projects involves financial and management
issues which have point source implications, such as sewer avoidance, regionali-
zation, and the need for advanced wastewater treatment. In FY 80, EPA plans to
initiate ten more FMAP projects, oriented toward nonpoint source financial
management problems. In FY 81 and beyond, EPA will continue to oversee
the development of these projects and--as results are available—make them
available to other agencies with similar financial management problems. Some
brief examples of available techniques are found in Appendix II.
Other 208 Priorities
The highest national priority problems for 208 funding in FY 81 and beyond
are urban storm runoff, agriculture and silviculture, and ground water contami-
nation. In addition, 208 funding will cover other projects addressing other
nonpoint source problems including construction runoff, mining pollutants, small
flow disposal systems, residuals disposal, and hydrologic modifications. EPA
will also continue to manage selected projects funded in FY 78 and 79 to perform
water quality analyses related to advanced waste treatment decisions, and to put
limited 208 funds into water quality aspects of recreation and open space projects.
Construction Runoff. This is a widespread problem which usually occurs in
developing urban and suburban areas. It contributes large amounts of sediment
to receiving waters which often are damaged for periods of time far exceeding
18
-------
that of construction. Since BMPs to control construction runoff are readily
available, EPA directs funds to the development of State and local regulatory
programs, with special emphasis on methods of financing regulatory approaches.
Mining. Both underground and surface mining have serious water quality
impacts in some States. With respect to coal mining, EPA normally looks to
the Office of Surface Mining, Department of Interior, and the States, for regu-
lation of coal mining activities. In other instances, involving non-coal mining,
where water quality impacts are severe, problems known, and solutions feasible,
208 funds may finance development of the solutions.
Water quality problems from mining sources other than coal mining can be
found in the copper mining areas of the Southwest and near lead mines in the
Midwest,-to name a few examples.
Small Alternative Wastewater Systems. There are nearly 17 million septic
tanks in the United States producing about a trillion gallons of liquid waste
annually, with high growth rates in rural areas and on the urban fringe. When
properly engineered and maintained, septic tanks are a safe, economical,
energy-efficient alternative to central sewage treatment. But when improperly
engineered or maintained, they may contaminate surface and ground water with
nitrates, pathogens, and toxic chemicals found in so-called septic tank cleaners.
Replacing septic systems with new sewers can result in unplanned suburban sprawl,
loss of prime farm land, and severe economic impacts on homeowners.
As a result of changes in the Clean Water Act in the 1977 Amendments, EPA's
construction grants program now funds solutions to septic system problems for
areas ranging in size from small townships to large multi-county areas. Thus,
to maximize the effectiveness of the Clean Water Act funding, EPA does not use
208 funds to address problems that are better-suited for 201 funding. Like 208
plans, 201 facility plans must consider no-action alternatives and non-structural
alternatives. The emphasis of the program is on providing waste treatment while
minimizing the environmental and monetary costs.
The WQM program, therefore, gives priority consideration to development of
policies for solving on-site problems, especially at the State level. Such an
effort could be coordinated with other 208-funded problem-solving efforts, such
as developing an integrated ground water protection program. As mentioned
earlier, the Agency is working on a coordinated small system strategy [12] for
publication i'n FY 80.
Residual Wastes. The Clean Water Act does not authorize the use of 208
funds to develop general solid waste management plans. However, States and
areawide agencies may apply 208 funds to nonpoint source aspects of residuals
disposal to solve known water quality problems where construction grants or
RCRA funds are not available.
Hydrologic Modifications. Channels, dams, diversions, and other hydrologic
modifications to natural water courses can sometimes have severe water quality
impacts involving sedimentation, eutrophication, salinity problems, or problems
with concentrated municipal or industrial wastes. Where 208 funds are used
19
-------
to address hydrologic modification, the projects should result in implementation
of regulatory programs to enhance or preserve water quality. Such projects
may focus on quality/quantity relationships, such as attempting to match quality
and use in domestic, industrial, and recreational applications in water-short
areas.
Recreation/Open Space. Participants in the WQM program may use some
208 funds to help provide recreation/open space opportunities where complete
recreation plans have already been developed by a recreational agency. The
use of 208 funds would normally relate to nonpoint source management or control
resulting in increasing or restoring recreational use.
Municipal Facilities. In the first round of 208 grants (FY 74-76), many
State and areawide agencies successfully addressed municipal waste treatment
problems, identifying service areas, making population disaggregations, and
determining necessary levels of treatment. Often, however, where advanced
waste treatment (AWT) appeared to be necessary for the solution to a problem,
further planning was required to confirm the need.
To assist with the refinement of processes for municipal facility advanced
treatment planning, EPA Headquarters will be providing technical assistance
to approximately 10 AWT planning and review projects funded with FY 78/79 208
grants. (See Appendix I for a list of AWT projects.) In these projects EPA,
the States, areawide agencies, local agencies, and the public are working
together to arrive at site-specific decisions. These projects will help refine
national guidance and policies on AWT, including the role of nonpoint sources in
AWT decision-making. As stated elsewhere in this strategy, 208 funds are now
directed to nonpoint source problems. However, the program still has a manage-
ment involvement with the AWT projects funded in FY 79, which will continue at
least through FY 81.
(The relationship between 201 and 208 planning efforts was the subject of
many of the comments WPD received on the draft of this strategy. For a complete
discussion of the 201/208 relationship and EPA's policies on funding waste load
allocations and plan updates, see Section IV.)
20
-------
III. FUNDING
A. Description of Sources
Through the process of work plan development and State/EPA Agreement
negotiations, the States, areawide agencies, and EPA will develop and implement
a problem-solving process which utilizes all available sources of funding. This
approach will bring about significant program coordination and integration by
matching the complementary aspects of various EPA programs, State and local
programs, and programs of other Federal agencies such as USDA. Coordinated
programs will solve difficult environmental problems at a lower overall cost
to the public. (See the State/EPA Agreement guidance [13].)
;
The'WQM regulations [1] describe the major work elements States are
eligible to address in their work programs, and identify the CWA funding
sources States may use to pay for these elements. Direct grants to areawide
agencies are only for WQM planning under section 208 of the Act. However,
areawide agencies and local management agencies may, under special arrange-
ments with the States, or EPA, perform specific duties under sections 106,
205(g), 208, 314, or 201 of the Act. Table II shows historic funding for
FY 72-80 for 106 and 208 funds.
Table III is a synopsis of each of the major grant sources for the WQM
process. In addition to these grant programs, funding from State and local
governments and other Federal sources contributes to the process. WPD has
initiated the Financial Management Assistance Program (FMAP) to help agencies
develop management tools which will allow States, areawides and the public
assume responsibility for financial aspects of water quality projects. A good
source of information on programs of other Federal agencies is the Catalog
of Federal Domestic Assistance [14].
B. WQM Funding Po1icies--FY 81 and Beyond
v
1. general
The funding policies of the WQM program are based on three overall
objectives. First, all program participants must be responsible for steward-
ship of grant funds. Second, they should use 208 grants to fund problem-solving
projects for solutions to priority problems that will be implemented. Third,
they should integrate and coordinate the WQM program to the extent feasible
with related EPA programs, other Federal programs, and State and local programs.
Generally, in FY 81 and beyond, EPA will continue to utilize the WQM
funding approach the FY 80 Baseline Strategy presented. This approach
includes the principle of needs-oriented funding and, for 208 grants, a focus
on nonpoint sources and a strong project orientation. In short, EPA will
continue to implement its five-year strategy, although corrections and
refinements will be made.
21
-------
TABLE II
HISTORIC FUNDING
FY 72-80
($ millions)
FY
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
1 1
appropriated
15.0
20.0
40.0
48.5
50.0
50.0
52.4
52.4
48.7
JO
obl igated*
15.0
20.0
40.0
48.5
50.0
50.0
52.4
52.4
£V
appropriated
—
50.0
100.0
150.0
53.0
15.0
69.0
32.0
37.5
JO
obligated
—
—
13.6
150.0
53.0
15.0
69.0
30.0
—
* As of January 1, 1980
22
-------
TABLE III
FUNDING FOR WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT
Reference
CWA 106
Name
State Program
Grants
Lead
Office
Water Planning
Division, Office
of Water Planning
and Standards,
(OWPS), Office of
Water and Waste
Management (OWWM)
Description
Annual grants to State and
interstate agencies to assist
them in administering pro-
grams for the prevention,
reduction, and elimination
of pollution. Used for a
wide range of activities.
CWA 208
Areawide
Wastewater
Treatment
Grants
Water Planning
Division, OWPS,
OWWM
The role of 208 planning is
to provide a technical base
for NPS controls, investi-
gate cause-effect relations,
evaluate cost-effective solu-
tions to problems, and through
the political process select
the implementable solutions.
CWA 201
Construction
Grants
Office of Water
Program Operations,
OWWM
Establishes a grant program
for construction of publicly-
owned treatment works. Step
1 grants for facility plan-
ning, Step 2 for detailed
plans and specifications,
and Step 3 for actual con-
struction.
CWA 205(g)
Construction
Management
Assistance
Grants
Office of Water
Program Operations,
OWWM
States are delegated respon-
sibility and awarded funds
to manage construction grants.
Administrator is authorized
to reserve each fiscal year
up to 2% of a State's con-
struction grant allotment or
$400,000 whichever is greater.
23
-------
Lead
Reference Name Office Description
CWA 314 Clean Lakes Criteria and Provides matching grants to
Standards Division, States to restore and pro-
OWPS, OWWM tect water quality in
publicly-owned fresh water
lakes. Phase I grants
support feasibility studies
and plans. Phase II grants
fund implementation of
pollution control or resto-
ration.
RCWP 1980, Rural Agricultural Establish and administer a
Clean Water Stablization program to enter into three-
Program and Conservation to-ten year contracts with
Service, USDA owners or operators of rural
lands to install and main-
tain BMP's.
24
-------
One general funding policy which should receive more emphasis in FY 81
is coverage of WQM funding priorities and plans in the annual State/EPA Agreement
process. The specific 106 and 208 discussions, below, provide details on funding
policy:
2. 106 policy
For FY 81, EPA will continue its needs-based policy for 106 grants. As
in past years, EPA provides targets (Table IV) for State and interstate agencies
who historically receive 106 grants. But the Regional Administrators must ensure
that each State and interstate commission has sufficient program needs to justify
receipt of the target amount.
States can demonstrate 106 program needs for a broad range of program
areas, including but not limited to monitoring, point and nonpoint source
planning and management, permits, enforcement, water quality standards and
emergency response. To receive a 106 grant, each State must provide State funds
at a level not less than the amount the State spent on its water program in 1971.
Where the State has received a construction grants management delegation under
section 205(g), it must contribute funds at a level not less that its contribution
in 1977, unless there is an across-the-board cut of all the State's environmental
programs. If a State does not contribute its required share of program support
-funds, it may not receive a 106 grant, and the Regional Administrator will
reallocate the funds to other States and interstate agencies within the Region.
In accordance with WQM regulations [1], it is EPA policy that the State
work programs cover all activities supported with 106 funds and that the
State/EPA Agreements, in turn, incorporate the State's work programs.
EPA will shortly begin to work with a committee of State representatives
to develop recommendations for revising the 106 management policies and alloca-
tion formula by FY 82. By starting to work on these policy changes now, the
Agency is allowing plenty of lead time for phasing in the policies starting in
FY 82.
3. 208 policy
For FY 81, EPA will continue the thrust of its existing 208 funding
policies by emphasizing needs-based funding, implementation-oriented funding,
nonpoint sources, and an annual work planning and grant-making cycle.
Needs-Based Funding. As in FY 80, it is EPA policy to allocate FY 81 208
funds on the basis of need, not by an arbitrary funding formula. WPD may
allocate a small amount to remaining NURP project needs for on-going projects.
No new NURP projects will be started in FY 81. The remaining FY 81 208 funds
will support priority needs which the Regional Offices, States, areawide agencies,
and the public identify within the framework of the national funding policy.
Table V, below, is a list of approximate Regional 208 targets for FY 81.
These targets are not entitlements or commitments, but simply guidelines for
the Regions and their 208 agencies to use in planning their FY 81 programs.
25
-------
TABLE IV
STATE 106 TARGETS FOR FY 81
BASED CM TOTAL APPROPRIATION OF $48.73 MILLION
($ MILLIONS)
Region
Region
Reqion
Region
Region
I CT
ME
MA
NH
RI
VT
NEIWPCC
TOTAL
1 1 N J
MY
PR
VI
ISC
TOTAL
III DE
DC
MD
PA
VA
WV
DRBC
INCOPOT
SRBC
TOTAL
IV AL
FL
GA
KY
MS
MC
SC
TN
ORSANCO
TOTAL
V IL
IN
MI
MM
OH
WI
TOTAL
0.75
0.54
1.16
0.33
0.51
0.24
0.22
3.74
1.33
2.63
0.79
0.36
0.26
5.43
0.41
0.41
0.32
2.13
1.23
0.62
0.22
0.14
0.03
6.10
1.30
1.26
1.52
0.72
0.73
1.80
0.97
0.88
0.33
9.48
1.32
1.02
1.74
0.91
1.36
1.38
8.74
Region VI
Region VII
Region VIII
Region IX
Region X
AR
LA
MM
OK
TX
TOTAL
I A
KS
MO
NE
TCTAL
CO
KT
ND
SP
UT
WY
TOTAL
AZ
CA
HI
NV
AS
GU
TT*
TCTAL
AK
ID
OR
WA
0.72
0.82
0.28
0.54
1 .80
4.16
0.71
0.51
0.86
0.56
2.64
0.46
0.33
0.21
0.22
0.30
0.15
1.68
0.40
2.07
0.34
0.17
0.08
0.36
0.16
4.38
0.15
0.33
0.80
1.04
TOTAL 2.37
TOTAL 48.73
NOTE: columns may not sum
exactly due to rounding error
*i
includes Northern Mariana Islands
26
-------
TABLE V
REGIONAL 208 TARGETS FOR FY 81
BASED ON TOTAL APPROPRIATION OF $34.0 MILLION*
($ MILLIONS)
Region I
Region II
Region III
Region IV
Region V
Region VI
Region VII
Region VIII
Region IX
Region X
1.5
3.0
2.8
4.7
5.5
3.8
1.9
2.2
3.7
2.9
"3270
*$2 million may be held at
Headquarters for NURP
funding during FY 81
27
-------
The Water Planning Division is striving to create a balanced national
WQM program with an appropriate mixture of projects addressing urban runoff,
agriculture, silviculture, ground water contamination, financial management
problems, and other nonpoint source problems which are Regional, State, or
local priorities. WPD will evaluate the FY 79-80 funding patterns, as well as
proposed FY 81 funding, to ensure that the WQM program produces hard outputs
and addresses priority problems. The results of this evaluation will help
direct the use of FY 81 funds, plus provide data for the development of the
FY 81 funding policies.
Implementation-Oriented Funding. It is EPA policy that 208 funds should
be directed to projects which will directly result in implementation of pollution
controls. Thus, each proposed 208 project for FY 81 should be part of a plan
or approach which moves promptly into the action, or implementation, phase.
These implementation approaches may be documented in State strategies, State/
EPA Agreements, or in the project proposals themselves.
The WQM regulations [1] limit continuing funding to agencies which are
implementing some portion of their certified and approved WQM plans. (See
35.1533-3(b).) As stated in WQM policy memorandum A-2 [15], award of FY 81 208
grants is contingent upon potential grantees meeting certain implementation
milestones negotiated with the Regional Offices during FY 80. Similarly,
during FY 81, each State or areawide agency which wishes to receive an FY 82
208 grant should negotiate appropriate implementation milestones with the
Regional Office as early as possible in FY 81.
Priority for 208 Grants to Nonpoint Sources. As in FY 80, EPA will
continue to direct its 208 funding to nonpoint source problems in FY 81. As
the FY 80 Baseline Strategy explained, the intent of the Administration, EPA,
and the Congress is to use 208 funding to address nonpoint sources which, taken
together, are the largest source of water quality problems in the country.
Although there are critical point source problems in many locations, including
municipal waste treatment, industrial treatment, and pretreatment, there are
other EPA grant programs under sections 106, 201, and 205(g) of the Act which
support State and local activities on these problems. (See further discussion
in Section IV, Emerging Policy Issues.)
Annual Work Planning and Grant-Making Cycle. For the past several years,
EPA has emphasized an annual work planning and grant-making cycle that provides
EPA, the States, and areawide agencies with adequate time to plan their programs,
allows EPA to award 208 grants early each fiscal year, and coordinates 208 funding
with 106 funding and the State/EPA Agreement process.
For FY 81 grants, after going through a transitional period in FY 79 and
80, EPA, the States, and areawides should be able to operate on an ideal annual
cycle. To do this, they should begin early in FY 80 to generate proposals and
draft work programs for their FY 81 grants.
As with 106 grants, priorities for FY 81 208 grants must be covered in
the FY 81 State/EPA Agreements and work programs. It is EPA policy that carry-
over of 208 funds from one fiscal year to the next be kept to zero and that all
208 grants be made by approximately mid-fiscal year.
28
-------
For more information on the annual management cycle for 208 grants, see
the Supplemental WQM Guidance for FY 80 [3] and the WQM time-line, Figure II.
C. Projected Funding
One purpose of this.five-year strategy is to provide information on future
funding to assist EPA Regional, State, and areawide planning. Although future
funding data is approximate and subject to change, it is necessary to project
future funding levels to assist long-term planning.
1. FY 81
Table IV shows individual State and interstate commission 106 targets for
FY 81. The projected total, $48.73 million, comes from the President's FY 81
budget. The targets are not commitments or entitlements, but simply guidelines.
In the State/EPA Agreement process, States and EPA will negotiate exact funding
levels and outputs.
The projected 208 appropriation for FY 81 is $34 million, based on the
President's budget for FY 81. Of this amount, $2 million may be allocated
for the on-going urban storm runoff projects. For planning purposes only,
Table V presents Regional 208 targets for FY 81. As in FY 80, EPA will base
actual allocations to the Regions on funding needs for nonpoint source control
priority programs.
2. FY 82-85
Funding projections for FY 82-85 are based on historical data. Projections
for 106 remain at about $50 million per year, although the WQM needs assessment
may provide information to indicate a future adjustment to this projection may
be necessary. EPA is undertaking a coordinated review of the 106 management
procedures and allocation formula, with an eye toward making appropriate changes
by FY 82.
As discussed under Management Priorities, above, completion of the 208
grant portion of the WQM program is planned for FY 83, assuming full funding
through FY1 83. Estimates of funding needs for 208 over the remaining years
are approximately $50 million annually. EPA will spend a small percentage of
this total directly for urban runoff projects through FY 81.
It has been suggested, both as a means of impacting more problems and
increasing State/local involvement in planning, that EPA gradually lower the
Federal share for 208 grants after FY 81, or develop a multi-layered system
where different types of projects would be eligible for different Federal shares.
This type of policy change has a legislative basis in section 208 of the Act
which says the Federal share "shall not exceed" 75 percent. It is EPA policy
that a lower Federal share is an option for the Regions, States, and areawide
agenctes to negotiate in their State/EPA Agreements.
29
-------
FIGURE II
WQM POLICY DEVELOPMENT TIME-LINE
oo
o
^
<)•>* cf^ c^
^ .•#• N^
.<^v ^
^ c
^ c/
^ efl
x> ,.?/ .A
*<£
.^v
>#
•s\* ^
^V ,4
^
FY 79
FY 80
PV 01
I I Ol
-------
IV. EMERGING POLICY ISSUES
This section of the strategy presents four discussions of emerging policy
issues for the WQM program. These are new or cross-cutting policies which relate
to the management and problem priorities, above. Several of the following dis-
cussions are open-ended, indicating that WQM policy in these areas is still in
the formative stage.
A. Coordination of 106 and 208 Grants
In FY 81 and beyond, the Water Planning Division, as the manager of the
WQM program, is striving to achieve further coordination of State and areawide
programs funded under section 106 and 208 of the Act—both administratively
and programmatically. The 106 and 208 grants are different types of grants
(see Funding Sources, Section III) with different funding criteria and, often,
different recipients. But together the two grant programs can complement each
other and operate more efficiently.
The new WQM regulations, 40 CFR 35 Subpart G [1], set up a streamlined
management structure for the WQM program and the Supplemental WQM Guidance [3]
provides details on management procedures to operate the two programs together.
Since FY 79, the overall management and integration tool has been the State/EPA
Agreement.
One conceptual goal of the WQM program is to arrive at an integrated
program including not only activities under sections 106 and 208, but also
under sections 205(g), 201, and 314 of the Clean Water Act. This program could
also be integrated with programs under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Clean Air Act through the State/
EPA Agreement process. EPA encourages imaginative approaches to streamlining
the work planning process, such as integrated work programs and strategies
for all Clean Water Act programs.
B. Water Quality, Quantity, and Conservation
The complex relationships between water quality, water resources, and
water conservation programs have been the subject of three recent reports at
the national level. (See references [16], [17], and [18].) The Water Planning
Division is now reviewing these reports and formulating policy responses in
keeping with their recommendations.
In general, the interests of the WQM program are in water quality consid-
erations. Certain quality/quantity activities or water conservation efforts
may be suitable for 208 grant support. Some examples are development of
ground water standards and identification of water-conserving BMPs for irrigated
agriculture or septic tanks. The WQM program does not provide 208 funds for
water conservation studies or State or areawide water budgets that do not
directly lead to implementation of programs with a direct impact on water
quality.
31
-------
C. Coordination of 201 and 208 Programs
EPA's decision to limit 208 funding to nonpoint source activities in FY 80
and beyond was responsible for most of the comments the Water Planning Division
(WPD) received on the draft of this strategy (November 16, 1979). The nonpoint
source limitation for 208 grants has, in effect, eliminated the overlap between
208 grants and Step 1 construction grants (section 201).
Many commenters objected to EPA's restrictions on the use of 208 funds to
perform waste load allocations, often saying that this policy left States or
areawide agencies with incomplete waste load allocation work. Many other
commenters said that 208 funds were needed for regular WQM plan updates, espe-
cially for facility-related elements such as population projections.
A number of other commenters supported EPA's policy on the grounds that
it directs needed attention to nonpoint sources and eliminates the confusion
on where 208 eligibilities and funding policies end and 201 and 205(g)
eligibilities begin.
After reviewing the comments from the EPA Regions and the WQM Ad Hoc
Advisors, WPD staff reviewed this policy area and made numerous informal
contacts with EPA, State and areawide agency staffs. The objective of the
review was to determine what gaps, if any, exist between 201, 205(g) and
208 eligibilities in the facility area and what action EPA should take to
achieve the most appropriate and cost-effective use of 201, 205(g), 106,
and 208 funds in effecting pollution control. Like the comments on the
strategy itself, the comments during the informal contacts were mixed--
some supported the present policy, others objected.
Findings. In cooperation with the Office of Water Program Operations,
which manages the construction grants program under section 201, WPD has
made several decisions on the 201/208 issue, subject to OMB approval. With
respect to waste load allocations (WLAs), EPA's decision for FY 81 is to
aggressively implement the provisions of PRM 79-11/WQM Policy Memo B-8 [19],
which provides for the use of 201 and 205(g) funds for high-priority WLAs
associated with facility construction. EPA will continue to direct 208
funds to nonpoint source controls, in keeping with Administration policy and
Congressional intent. It is important to note that 79-11/B-8 calls for each
State to prepare a list of WLAs necessary to substantiate inadequate AST/AWT
effluent limitations. EPA will work with the States, areawide agencies, and
local governments to:
--identify where WLAs are most needed, through review of the lists
required in 79-11/B-8
— identify appropriate Federal and other funds available to do needed
work, with particular emphasis on 201 and 205(g) funds as spelled out
in 79-11/B-8
--assist WQM agencies in obtaining these funds.
32
-------
Part of the rationale for this policy is that many large POTW projects
which required waste load allocations are either complete or under construction.
Thus, EPA feels that most of the remaining needs are fundable under 201, 205(g)
and State and local funds.
Several commenters on the draft strategy said that 208 funds are needed
to pay for waste load allocations on segments where there is no way to obtain
201 funds. EPA policy is that several other sources of funding, including 106
grants, 205(g) grants, and State, local and industry funds are available for
this purpose. Nevertheless, certain unique situations may arise where 208
funds could pay for WLA work in non-201-eligible instances. EPA will provide
such funding only if both of the following conditions are met:
1. EPA, the State, and the areawide or local agencies involved determine
that the WLA is not eligible for 201 and 205(g) grants, and no 106,
State, local, or private funding is, or can be made, available to
pay for the waste load allocation in a reasonable time period; and
2. the project meets precise WPD criteria and obtains HQ approval
according to procedures in upcoming WQM guidance.
With respect to 208 funding for regular plan updates, the EPA managers of
the WQM program and the construction grants program believe that almost all of
the necessary population projections, service area delineations, and waste load
and flow projections are in place, by virtue of the initial 208 planning effort
EPA funded between FY 74 and 79 and current disaggregations under the Cost-
Effectiveness Guidelines [20]. In keeping with EPA's policy regarding the
orderly completion of the 208 grant program after FY 83, EPA will continue to
direct 208 funds to nonpoint source problem-solving activities and to give no
priority to the use of 208 funds for plan updates. Where construction grants
are involved, population projections are an eligible Step 1 cost and are easily
incorporated i.nto existing 208 plans under the WQM regulations [1]. WQM
agencies should assume such on-going activities as they strive to become self-
sufficient.
On-Going Activities. EPA is managing two on-going activities which will
contribute to the overall success of the 201 and 208 planning efforts: the
AST/AWT task force reviews and the AWT prototype projects which 208 grants
funded in FY 78-79.
The work of the AST/AWT task force has been instrumental in refining agency
policy on facility-related waste load allocations and determination of treatment
levels. Based on the work of the task force, EPA will soon issue additional
guidance on proper methodologies, cost-sharing approaches, water quality standards
considerations, and other aspects of the WLA issue.
Also, as mentioned in Section II of this strategy, EPA Headquarters is
providing technical assistance to approximately 10 AWT planning and review
projects funded with FY 78/79 208 grants. These projects, which involve EPA,
State, areawide, local, and public interests, will help to refine national
guidance and policies on AWT, including the role of nonpoint sources in AWT
decision-making. (See the list of on-going AWT prototype projects, Appendix I.)
33
-------
Future Action. The policies outlined immediately above will generally
govern the relationship of 201 and 208 grant programs in FY 81. However, EPA
will continue to monitor developments in ^his policy area and will issue
updated or corrected policy as the need a'rises, either as a WQM policy memo-
randum or in the FY 82-Baseline WQM Strategy. The WQM Needs Assessment,
which will produce its first report in the spring of 1980, will also provide
much-needed facts and figures on potential gaps between 201 and 208
eligibilities.
D. Coordination of WQM and Other Agency Ground Water Activities
One significant issue affecting the implementation of this strategy is the
relationship between the WQM program's ground water prototype projects and the
broader EPA task force effort to develop comprehensive ground water policies under
the leadership of the Office of Drinking Water.
The purpose of the WQM ground water prototypes is to encourage States to
develop comprehensive management strategies and programs. Such State programs
would coordinate State management of hazardous and non-hazardous waste disposal
under RCRA, underground injection and sole source aquifers under SDWA, and land
application and nonpoint sources under the CWA.
Some eligible activities in the ground water area for 208 grants are
development of State monitoring strategies, development of aquifer classification
approaches, development and implementation of regulatory controls, and develop-
ment of model ordinances or other approaches to control uses in aquifer recharge
areas. The project results should be transferable to other areas of the country
facing similar problems.
The goal of the ground water task force, on the other hand, is to develop an
integrated Agency ground water policy and strategy with input from States, local
agencies, industry, and the public. The task force will make recommendations for
the Administrator regarding institutional, policy and legislative adjustments
needed to carry out Agency ground water programs. Thus, the WQM ground water
prototype program is a key part of the Agency-wide effort, but with a more
narrow focus.
34
-------
V. 208 OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this section of the WQM Strategy is to give the
participants in the WQM process—Headquarters, Regions, States, and
areawide agencies—a firm idea of EPA's expectations for FY 80-85 for
solving the priority 208 problems of urban runoff, agriculture/silviculture,
ground water contamination and other 208 priorities. As the strategy
states elsewhere, the emphasis of the program over the next five years
is on problem solving. The program will solve problems by building the
informational base for control and, through the political process,
selecting and implementing cost-effective solutions.
The major underlying assumption within the objectives is that,
given full funding, the use of section 208 grants will be completed in
FY 83, implying sunset for 208 grants in FY 84. As stated earlier, this
will represent the successful completion of a framework for solving most
water quality problems. In FY 81 the Agency will begin to develop a
recommendation for a restructured WQM program to continue the implementation
of 208 plans.
The objectives related to solving the priority problems appear on
the following pages. For each problem area, there is a statement of an
overall objective, a set of related "givens," and charts which provide
details on certain existing problem-solving projects.* Detailed objectives
follow for each problem in a matrix format. The matrices do not show
all activities that will be occurring in FY 80-85. Instead, they show
specific targets or sub-objectives which will contribute to the attainment
of the overall objectives.
Within the matrices, references are made to Category I and Category
II projects. This language stems from WQM funding policies (see WQM
Policy Memo A-2, INFO 80-26 [15]). Category I includes national priority
projects which EPA Headquarters tracks and provides with technical
assistance. Category II includes national priority projects which
Headquarters does not track in any detail. These Category II projects
emphasize developing and implementing controls, that is, making the
transition from planning programs to implementation programs.
* The information on the charts is the best available at the date of
publication; however, the information is subject to change.
35
-------
Urban Storm Runoff
Overall Objective
The overall objectives for urban storm runoff in FY 81-85 are (1)
to control urban runoff-related water quality problems at the State and
local level, (2) to develop a technological base for control by the end
of FY 82, (3) to make a report to Congress on effects, causes, controls
and implementation funding in FY 83, and (4) to make, where appropriate,
the transition from site-specific planning projects to widespread implementation
before FY 83, assuming that the NURP projects identify consistent methodologies
for assessing urban runoff problems and a set of feasible and cost-
effective BMPs that can be transferred to other areas.
Given
1. Through the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program, EPA, the Regions,
States, and areawide agencies carefully selected about 30
site-specific projects to consistently evaluate urban runoff
problems and to test urban storm runoff BMPs.
2. The projects will generally last three years. Funds come
directly from the national 208 appropriation.
3. EPA has already provided initial funding to almost all the
urban storm runoff projects. While projects are generally
fully funded now, some supplemental funding may be required in
FY 81 to assure successful completion of the 30 NURP projects.
4. 208 funding for additional urban storm runoff control projects
(i.e., other than through NURP) is provided after a demonstration
of need by the EPA Regional Offices, as is the case in other
afeas of nonpoint source control.
5. Non-NURP projects normally do not include general toxic monitoring
or the kind of intensive data collection necessary to evaluate
BMP effectiveness and cause-effect relationships. Instead,
these activities are covered through NURP because of the
expense involved in producing enough useful information to transfer
to other projects. In contrast to the data collection focus
of NURP projects, the purpose of non-NURP projects is to
establish operational control programs applying the best
available BMPs, with monitoring only if necessary to lead to
implementation of controls on the pollutant in question.
6. Beginning in FY 81, other agencies with urban runoff problems
should start to implement-BMPs shown to be effective in the
prototype projects. *
36
-------
iWTIONAL UREA'I RUfiOF PROJECTS
Name/Location
MA - Lake
Quinsigamond
Total Grant
AmountTiming
Type of Rec. Mater Type of Pollutant
373,700 7/79 - 9/81 lake
nutients, sediments
heavy metal, coliforms
Type of BMPs
To be determined
MA. - Mystic
River
728,700 7/79 - 9/81 lake, small stream, BOD/COD/DO, nutrients,
river sediments, coliforms
teacup
NH - Durham
179,700 7/79 - 12/81 river estuary
BOD/COD/DO, nutrients,
sediments, coliforms
street sweeping,
catch basin cleaning,
detention
VT
363,700 4/80 - 12/82 small streams
BOD/COD/DO, nutrients
sediments, coliforms
sumps and sand
filters
NY -Long
island
1,360,700 7/79 - 7/82 river, estuary,
ground water
nutrients, non-metal
toxics, coliforms
street sweeping,
detention, wetlands
treatment, percolating
storm sewer
NY - Lake
George
810,000 1/80 - 12/82 lake
nutrients, sediments,
heavy metal, coliforms
To be determined
NY - Irondequoit 843,400 1/80 - 12/82 lake
Bay
BOD/COD/DO, nutrients,
sediments, heavy metal,
coliforms
DC - Metro 1,299,900 9/79 - 10/82 small stream, lake BOO/COD/DO, nutrients,
Washington river, estuary sediments, heaVy metal,
coliforms
To be determined
detention
MD - Baltimore 1,422,600 10/79 - 11/82 small stream, lake, BOD/COD/DO, nutrients,
river sediments, heavy metal,
other toxics, oil J
grease, coliforms
To be determined
SC - Myrtle 853,900 4/79 - 9/81 ocean
Beach (est.)
coliforms
elimination of cross
connections, collection
and discharge to ocean
NC - Winston
Salem
572,500 9/79 - 7/82 small stream, lake, BOD/COD/DO, nutrients To be determined
river heavy metal, coliforms
FL - Tampa
750,000 1/80 - 9/82 lake, river,
(est.) estuary
BOD/COO/DO, nutrients,
coliforms
To be determined
AL - Birmingham
650,000 H/A
(est.)
river
N/A
N/A
MI - Lansing
1 ,142,200 5/79 - 8/82 river
nutrients, other
toxics
detention, upsized
pipes
MI - SEKCOG -
Oakland County
386,500 6/79 - 7/82 lake
nutrients, sediments
detention, runoff
ordinances
MI - SEMCOG -
Ann Arbor
195,000 10/78 - 11/80 river
nutrients, sediments,
heavv metal
detention, wetlands
treatment
37
-------
lilllil prn
Total Grant
Name/Location Amount
1L - Champaign 783,500
Urbana
Timing Type of Rec. Hater
.4/79 - 9/80 small stream
Type of Pollutant
heavy metal, other
toxics
Type of BHPs
street sweeping
IL - Glen
Ellyn
156,800
4/79 - 10/82 small stream,
lake
BOD/COD/DO, nutrients,
sediments, heavy metal,
coliforms
detention
WI - Milwaukee 758,500
9/79 - 8/82 small stream,
lake, river
BOD/COD/DO, nutrients,
sediments, heavy metal
street sweeping
TX - Austin
300,000 7/79 - 8/82 lake
nutrients, sediments,
heavy metal
detention, runoff
ordinances
ARK - Little 800,000
Rock
3/80 - 12/82 small stream, river
BOD/COD/DO, nutrients,
heavy metal, coliforms
To be determined
KA - Kansas City 690,000
(est.)
4/80 - 3/82 river, lake
BOD/COD/DO, nutrients,
heavy metal, coliforms
To be determined
CO - Denver
1,176,TOO
7/79 - 6/82 small stream, lake,
river
nutrients, sediments,
heavy metal, coliforms
street sweeping,
detention, runoff
ordinances
UT - Salt
Lake City
50 - Rapid
City
816,700 9/79 - 8/82 small stream, river
552,600 I/go - 12/32 river
BOD/COD/DO, nutrients, catch hasin cleaning,
sediments, oil 4 grease, detention, wetlands
conforms treatment, in-line
storaqr in canal
BOD/COD/DO, nutrients. To be determined
sediments, heavy metals,
oil and grease, coliforms
CA - Santa
Ana
999,000 8/79 - 7/82 estuary
sediments, heavy
metal, oil & grease,
coliforms
street sweeping,
oil t, grease traps
CA - Castro 225,000
Valley
11/78 - 11/79 small stream
nutrients, sediments,
heavy metal, other
toxics, coliforms, and
asbestos
street sweeping
CA - Fresno
796,000 1/80 - 12/82 sole-source aquifer
BOD/COD/DO, nutrients, retention/recharge
sediments, heavy metals, basins
oil and grease, coliforms
MA - Bellevue 486,300 10/79 - 9/81 small stream, lake
BOD/COD/DO, nutrients, street sweeping,
sediments, heavy metal, detention
other toxics, oil J
grease, conforms
OR - Eugene
250,000
(esi.)
10/79 - 9/81 river
BOD/COD/DO, sediments, sedimentation basins,
heavy metals, toxicants, vegetation management,
oil and grease, coliforms erosion control and
ordinance street
sweeping
38
-------
WQM PROGRAM
OBJECTIVES MATRIX-URBAN STORM RUNOFF
OVERALL OBJECTIVE:
(1) TO DEVELOP A TECHNOLOGICAL BASE FOR CONTROL
CONGRESS ON EFFECTS, CAUSES, AND CONTROLS IN FY
PLANNING PROJECTS TO WIDESPREAD IMPLEMENTATION BEGINNING IN FY 85,
Y THE END OF FY 32, (2) TO MAKE A REPORT TO
3, (3) TO MAKE THE TRANSITION FROM PROTOTYPE
UNIT
Headquarters
FY 80
GO
<£>
EPA Regions
assist with work programs;
fund all projects for
entire period of each
project
begin to evaluate useful-
ness of and requirements
for general permits for
urban runoff
evaluate projects by
examining quarterly and
annual progress reports
(thru 82)
FY 81
FY 82
FY 83
FY 84-85
provide guidance on
general permits, as
appropriate
begin to transfer Info
to other Federal, State«
areawlde, local agencies
analyze effectiveness of
control measures (thru 82)
analyze financial, legal,
and Institutional Issues
develop Information transfer \n anticipation of control
program programs (thru 82)
assist with work programs;
award grants
begin to identify additional
WQM agencies that need to
implement BMPs
manage prototype projects;
provide assistance, eval-
uation, funding
write general permits and
enforce as appropriate for
separate sewers (non-
NPDES States only)
(thru 84)
identify additional WQM
agencies that need to
implement USR BMPs (thru 82)
begin developing report
to Congress which Includes
a complete evaluation of
the projects and a recom-
mended national urban run-
off control program
document urban runoff
controls, costs
present findings and
recommendations to
Congress in mid-83
assist program assessment
and evaluation
Identify h1gh-pr1or1ty
urban runoff control
needs and available
sources of funding for
Implementation
(thru 84)
implementation of control
programs in appropriate
areas throughout the
country based on Con-
gressional action
implementation of control
programs where problems
are identified based on
Congressional action
States and
areawlde
agencies
prototype agencies test
BMP's; apply financial mgmt.
tools from FMAP+ to solutions
of urban runoff problems
(thru 81)
collect data; prepare
quarterly and annual
progress reports (thru 82)
close out prototype
projects
other agencies with
urban runoff problems
begin to implement
tested BMPs and to
finance operational
control programs
(thru 85)
agencies with urban
runoff problems apply
BMPs, implement reg-
ulatory programs and
structural controls
Involve public 1n decision-;
making; evaluate public
response; prepare respon-
siveness summaries (thru 84)
FMAP--F1nancial Management Assistance Project
-------
Agriculture
Overall Objective
The overall objectives for controlling agriculture nonpoint sources
are (1) to use the agriculture strategy [11] and the WQM funding policies
to focus resources on solving the most significant problems in those
areas where water quality has been, or will be, adversely affected, (2) to
immediately implement BMPs contained in certified/approved WQM plans
with State and local initiatives and with the assistance of Agricultural
Conservation Program (ACP) and 1980 Rural Clean Water Program funds, (3)
to continue to develop the technological and institutional bases for
controls through problem-solving projects throughout the five year
period of this strategy, (4) to encourage States to develop operational
control programs, such as State cost-sharing programs, and (5) to initiate
policy evaluations on the need for additional Federal cost-share implementation
programs and the role of regulatory programs when needed to supplement
non-regulatory programs.
Given
1. The experimental RCWP program, which USDA has responsibility
for administering, has received $50 million in funding from
the Congress in the FY 80 appropriation.
2. RCWP cost-sharing contracts will have a three-to-ten year life
and will cover implementation of BMPs identified in the WQM process.
Since applications for RCWP funds have already been submitted, EPA
will not fund .further preparation of RCWP applications; also, EPA
will not fund agencies with certified/approved agricultural plan
elements to identify and prioritize RCWP projects.
3. EPA will cooperate with USDA on funding and managing several
types of projects touching on agricultural nonpoint source
control:
--MIPs (Model Implementation Projects)
--ACP (Agricultural Conservation Program) special water
quality projects
--other types of USDA projects
The projects are 3-5 year projects. EPA will analyze results
and transfer them to other States and areawide agencies as
they become available.
4. EPA is selecting in FY 80 approximately three to five on-going
agriculture projects for intensive monitoring and evaluation
of the effectiveness of BMPs for improving water quality.
5. The development of State and local cost-sharing programs and
regulatory programs in situations where other types of programs
have not been effective has high priority.
6. The development and adoption of innovative BMPs for control of
pesticides and nutrients in State WQM plans is encouraged.
40
-------
.Ti£L II-PLE-ENTATION PROJECTS
Amount
Name/Location !EPA
-------
AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION PP.OJECTS
fh-2/Location
ILLIIIOIS
TENNESSEE
Amount*
1. -100.000
-200,000
-150.0CQ
3, 425. OC3
-400,000
-400,000
Timing
Sept. 02
Sept.. C2
Type of Rec. 1/atur Type of PoPutent
lake, water supply sediment/chemicals
SeiJ1;Rc:U/post1cides
Type of BHPs
erosion control/
seeding, animal
waste control
seeding, animal
waste, pollution
abatement, tree
pi an (/."^terraces
NEBRASKA
979.000 Sept. 02
-250,000
-150,000
domestic water supply nitrates/fertilizers
education program,
determine fertilizer
needs
ALAOAMA
KANSAS
1.313.335 Sept. 02
-340,000
-340,000
1,801.952 Sept. 04
-250,000
-200,000
streams
erosion sedimentation,
animal wastes
sheet, rill, gully
erosion, nutrients,
pesticides
seeding, erosion
control, animal waste
facllltiesXVeedlots
seeding, strcambank
stabilization, water
outlets on or near
cropland
CONNECTICUT
OREGON
ARKANSAS
274,000 Sept. 02
- 70,000
- 70,000
500.000 Sept. 03
-125,000
-100,000
775.000 Sept. 02
-130,000
-130.000
Lakes and ponds
creeks
sediments, nutrients
erosion, sedimentation
contour farming,
seeding, conservation
tillage, strip cropping
streambank stabilization
terraces, diversions,
seeding, sediment, dams.
mulching, brush control
animal wastes, streambank seeding, landscaping,
and cropland erosion diversions, terraces,
animal waste ta.cillt1e:
PUERTO RICO
KENTUCKY
720,000 Sept. 02
- 70,000
- 30,000
2.500.000 Sept. 03
-350,000
-250,000
reservoir, public
water supply
sedimentation, animal
wastes
sedimentation
animal waste pollution
control facilities
terraces, erosion
control facilities,
field and stream
borders, conservation
tillage, animal waste
facilities
MICHIGAN
5,519,6-)5 Sept. 02
-400,000
-300,000
public water supply.
recreation
sediments, nutrients
seeding, diversions,
windbreaks, cropland
covers, conservation
tillage, animal waste
facilities, tree
planting
OHIO
349,705 Sept. 02
- 55,000
- 55,000
sediments, nutrients,
phosphorous
education, monitoring
42
-------
ACP projects (contliuiL-d)
Name/Location
MISSISSIPPI
Amount* Timing
1,193,050 "Sept. 02
-300,COO
-250,000
Type of Rec. Uater
Type of Pollutant
sediment, erosion
Type of UMPs.
vegetative cover,
conservation tillage,
grassed waterways,
terraces, erosion
control structures,
contour planting
NEW HAMPSHIRE
MISSOURI
00,000 Sept. 02
- 25,000
- 25,000
1,878,750
-350,000
-150,000
Sept. 82
drinking water
animal was to, erosion
sedimentation
manure storage, stream
protection, seeding
seeding, terraces,
conservation tillage,
grassed waterways.
contour fanning
HID I AHA
616,000 Sept. 03
- 75,COO
-100,000
sediment
computer model to
Identify and prioritize
erosion on watershed
MAINE
5,000,000
-300,000
-300,000
Sept. 90
soil erosion,
sedimentation, nutrients,
pesticides
cover crops, seedlngs,
strip cropping,
conservation tillage,
diversions, erosion
control structures,
tree planting, terraces
rotation
SOUTH CAROLINA
TEXAS
800,000
-200,000
-200,000
660,000
-150,003
- 50,000
Sept. 02
Sept. 02
lake, public water
supply
streams
soil erosion, sedimenta-
tion
animal wastes
strip cropping, terrace
diversions, sod water-
ways, conservation
tillage, seeding, anloia
waste facilities,
sediment retention
reservoirs
diversion channels,
waterways, pits, ponds,
setting basins, lagoons
around feedlots and
holding areas
MARYLAND
200.000
-100,000
- 75,000
Sept. 82
bay
erosion, animal wastes
diversions, grassed
waterways, water contro
structures, seeding,
critical area planting,
minimum tillage
NEW MEXICO
1.210.0QO
-275,000
-275,000
Sept. 03
recreation, housing
Imtgatlon water, salinity
sedimentation
seeding, range manage-
ment, irrigation return
'low. forestry nuinage-
nt practices, water
development
-Total estimated cost. USDA funds. The first figure under the total amount represents the USOA FY 79
allocation; the second figure is the USOA FY 80 allocation.
Sen* 208 money may oe directed toward certain of these projects in FY 80 and beyond.
43
-------
OBJECTIVES MATRIX-AGRICULTURE NPS
OVERALL OBJECTIVE:
(1) TO USE THE AGRICULTURE STRATEGY AND THE WQM FUNDING POLICIES TO FOCUS RESOURCES ON
SOLVING THE MOST SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS IN THOSE AREAS WHERE WATER QUALITY HAS, OR WILL BE,
ADVERSELY AFFECTED, (2) TO IMMEDIATELY IMPLEMENT BMP S CONTAINED IN CERTIFIED/APPROVED WQM
PLANS WITH STATE AND LOCAL INITIATIVES AND WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION
PROGRAM (ACP) AND RURAL CLEAN WATER PROGRAM (203(j)) FUNDS AND (3) TO CONTINUE TO DEVELOP
THE TECHNOLOGICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL BASES FOR CONTROLS THROUGH PILOT AND PROTOTYPE PROJECTS,
UNIT
Headquarters
FY 80
FY 81
FY 82
FY 83
FY 84-85
EPA Regions
work with Regions, States,
to dev ag NPS controls.
Including financial aspects
thru FMAP+(thru 81)
transfer Info to other Fed,
State, local agencies
(thru 84)
1n coop with USDA select
RCWPIM&E projects
develop and finalize M&E
guidelines, strategy
select M&E projects
from MIPs/ACPs
approve all WQM plans
and help establish RCWW
coordinating committees
In all States
manage HIPS**nd ACPs*.
provide assist, eval;
funding (thru 83)
develop ag NPS strategies
use FMAP»"to provide
financial mgt. assist.
for ag NPS controls
(thru 81)
provide national mgmt
overview of RCWP*, MIP**,
ACP* special projects
(thru 85)
determine future EPA
role and policy for
agr. poll, control;
work with USDA on
economic Incentives/
disincentives (thru 83)
manage MIP's**, ACP*
projects; monitor RCWP#
projects (thru 85)
document cause-effect
relationships; Regional
summary level
assist program assess-
ment, evaluation (thru 84)
complete MIPS*,*evaluate
results (thru 83)
prepare national MIP**
summary report
recommend restruc-
tured WQM program
prepare ACP*summary
report
complete 15 ACP*projects,
evaluate findings (thru 83)
complete 4 additional
ACP* projects
States and
areawlde
agencies
certify agricultural por-
tions of WQM plans
conduct MIP's**, and ACPs*
thru RCWP0Coordinating
Committees, manage Imple-
mentatlotLof agricultural
NPS BMP's (thru 85)
notify and Inform public
about prototypes; consult
with advisory committees,
develop progress reports,
prepare responsiveness
summaries (thru 85)
certify updated agricul-
tural elements of WQM plans
(thru 85)
document cause-effect
relationships at project
level
begin implementation of
tested BMPs (thru 85)
participate In RCWP0M&E
projects
monitor Implementation
of agricultural BMP's
(thru 85)
* ACP — Agricultural Conservation Program
** MIP -- Model Implementation Program
f RCWP — Rural Clean Water Program (Z08(J))
+ FMAP — Financial Management Assistance Program
-------
Silviculture
Overall Objective
The overall objectives for controlling silviculture nonpoint source
pollution are (1) to implement the EPA/FS Agreement [4], (2) to implement,
starting in FY 80, BMPs contained in certified and approved plans, with
the assistance of the RCWP and other forestry assistance programs, (3) to
continue developing technological and institutional bases for controls
through problem-solving projects, and (4) to assure integration of water
quality and forestry management programs and transfer the lessons learned
from the three selected forestry projects to other States.
Given
1. The RCWP program, which USDA has responsibility for administering,
received funding from the Congress in FY 80 for $50 million.
2. RCWP cost-sharing contracts will have a three-to-ten year life and
, will fund implementation of BMPs identified in the WQM process.
3. The EPA/FS Agreement [4] provides the mechanism for the two agencies
to work together to achieve common goals. EPA will cooperate with
the USDA on funding and management of several types of problem-solving
projects touching on silviculture nonpoint source control:
--ACP (Agricultural Conservation Program) projects
--FIP (Forest Incentive Program) projects
--State WQM plan/State Forest Resource Program projects
The projects are long-term projects. EPA will transfer the
results to all States and areawide agencies as they come in.
4. EPA will provide expert technical and financial management assistance
for agencies addressing silviculture nonpoint source problems.
5. The development of regulatory programs and State cost-sharing programs
for BMP implementation have high priority in situations where volun-
tary programs have not been effective.
6. Integration of State forest resource programs with the State WQM
program is encouraged.
45
-------
CATEGORY I SILVICULTURE PROJECTS*
Name/Location
Amount
Timing
Type of Pollutant
Colorado
(Front Range)
30,000
Sept. 81
sediment
New Hampshire
(Statewide)
31,550 Sept. 81
sediment
*A third project will be selected in FY 80.
46
-------
WQM PROGRAM
OBJECTIVES MATRIX-SILVICULTURE NFS
OVERALL OBJECTIVE: (1) TO IMPLEMENT THE EPA/FS AGREEMENT, (2) TO IMPLEMENT, STARTING IN FY 80, BMP'S CONTAINED*
IN CERTIFIED AND APPROVED PLANS, WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE RCWP (208(j)) AND OTHER FORESTRY
ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS, (3) TO CONTINUE DEVELOPING TECHNOLOGICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL BASES FOR
CONTROLS, AND (4) TO ASSURE INTEGRATION OF WATER QUALITY AND FORESTRY MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
AND TRANSFER THE LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE THREE SELECTED FORESTRY PROGRAMS TO OTHER STATES.
UNIT
FY 80
FY 81
FY 82
FY 83
FY 84-85
Headquarters provide assist, to sllv.
elements of ACPs*-
provide tech assist.,
evaluation, coord with
FS efforts on 3 selected
national forestry projects
(thru 82)
transfer Information to
other Federal, State, and
areawlde agencies (thru 84)
participate on national
RCWPtf coordinating commit-
tee (thru 84) '
provide national mgmt
overview on RCWP#, ACP*.
FIP° special projects
(thru 84)
determine future EPA
role and policy for
agr. poll. control;
work with USDA on
economic incentives/
disincentives (thru 83)
EPA Regions
manage ACP*, FIP°, RCWPif
silviculture elements
use FMAP+to provide finan-
cial mgmt tech assistance
for developing and imp!em.
silv. controls (thru 81)
manage three nat'l. silvicul-
ture projects (thru 82)
assist dev of State regula-
tory programs for sllv.
(thru 82)
document cause-effect
relationships for Region
States and
areawlde
agencies
conduct ACP*, FIP° special
projects (thru 84)
through RCWPi? coordinating
committees, manage Irnplej-
mentation of silviculture
NPS BMPs (thru 84)
inform public and Involve
them 1n Implementation of
silviculture NPS BMP's
(thru 84)
document cause-effect
relationships at project
level
utilize results of ACPs,
FIPs to begin implemen-
tation, of controls
* ACP — Agricultural Conservation Program
o np -- Forest Incentive Program (USDA)
t RCWP — Rural Clean Water Program (208(j))
+ FMAP „ Financial Management Assistance Project
-------
Ground Water
Overall Objective
The overall objectives for ground water protection are (1) to
encourage the States to develop comprehensive strategies and management
programs to protect ground water quality; (2) to implement the WQM
ground water strategy [10]; and (3) to continue to develop technological
and financial bases for controls through site-specific projects.
Given
1. WPD has contracted with a national team of ground water technical
experts to assist in the development of agency and WQM ground
water strategies, to assist in the development and implementation
of ground water projects at Regional Office request, and to
provide technical assistance as necessary.
2. EPA HQ, the Regions, and the States will select approximately
20 projects (10 in FY 1980 and 10 FY 1981) for detailed assistance
to develop BMPs which can be transferred to areas with similar
problems.
3. The FMAP will provide financial management technical assistance
for developing implementable projects.
4. EPA Regions, the States, and areawide agencies may use the
State/EPA Agreement process to document where ground water
quality problems exist and what actions each party will take.
5. WPD has developed a ground water strategy [10] which includes
criteria for the development and selection of acceptable 208
funded ground water projects and criteria for selecting national
priority projects.
48
-------
Ill None to Date
FY i9s: GROU:;: .;AT:R PROTOTYPE PROJECTS
DRAFT - FINAL SELECTION
Reqion/Applicant
I Connecticut
Dept. of
Environmental
Protection
Amount
$260,680
Schedule
7/80-7/31
Program Description
Development of aquifer protection
controls (including model develop-
ment and application)
II Mew York
State Dept.
of Environmental
Conservation
(NYSDEC)
a) Statewide
b) Long Island
FY'79 thru
FY'81
$460 ,-382
$712,452
Develop a Statewide comprehensive
ground water management plan
(includes the Statewide and the
Long Island ground water management
plan)
II New Jersey
Dept. of
Environ~.er.tal
Protection
(NJDEP)"
a) State
b) NJDEP/
Middlesex
Co.
$326,000
$214,000
1/8C-12/SO
11/79-11/80
New Jersey ground water management
plan. E~piics"!s --/i'll be clvred c-n
regulatory and funding neecs.
Aquifer recharge protection and
water conservation programs, with
err.phasis on controlling salt water
intrusion.
IV Florida Dapt.
of Environ-
mental Regula-
tion
$200,000
FY'80 thru
FY'81
Develop comprehensive ground water
management program for Biscayne
Aquifer (in conjunction with the
South Florida Water Management
District/USGS study)
V Michigan
Dept. of
Natural
Resources
under nego-
tiation
10/80-9/81
Develop a Statewide ground water
strategy arid program to select
priority areas for management with
particular focus on management of
ground water contamination sites.
VI
New Mexico
Environmental
Improvement
Division
$150,000
6/80-6/82
Develop ground water strategy.
Implement existing ground water
regulations in Albuquerque-Metro,
Carlsbad and Grants Mineral Belt
areas (with particular emphasis
on the impact of uranium mining
on ground water quality).
VII Kansas Dept.
of Health and
Environment
$62,000
FY'80 thru
FY' 81
Develop Statewide ground water
management program. Both surface
and subsurface pollution sources
will be addressed.
VII Nebraska
Natural
Resources
Co-mission
$200,000
FY'80
Extract nitrates from ground water
by irrigation scheduling.
49
-------
FV 1980 Ground Water Prototype Projects (continued)
•Reg ion/.'opl'i cant
VIII Larimer-Held
Regional
Co-ncil of
Governments
IX Arizona De?t.
of Health
Service/
Maricopa
Association of
Governments/
Central Arizona
Association of
Governments
Idaho Dept.
of Health
and Welfare/
Dept. of Water
Resources
Ar.iount
51,300,000
$150,000
.Schedule
4/80-9/33
FY'SO thru
rY'Sl
$90,000
FY'SO
Program Description
"Denver Basin Project". Involves
the DRCOG, the PPCOG and the LV.'COG.
Develop a comprehensive ground
water management program.
Develop a ground water management
program in the Globe/Miami copper
mining area. This will be a
cooperative project between the
WQM program and the local copper
industries and will be -coordinated
with related activities funded
under P.CRA Hazardous Waste Program,
and the Bureau of Mines. This
project will develop and inplercent
3V?'s to be transferred to other
areas of the State and country.
Develop alternatives to injection
of irrigation tail water. Through
WQM and UIC programs, establish
appropriate legal controls to
regulate the use of irrigation
disposal wells in aquifers used for
water supply.
50
-------
HQM PROGRAM
OBJECTIVES MATRIX—GROUNDNATER
OVERALL OBJECTIVE:
(1) TO DEVELOP AN EPA AND WQM GROUNDWATER POLICY AND STRATEGY AND (2) TO CONTINUE TO DEVELOP
TECHNOLOGICAL AND FINANCIAL BASES FOR CONTROLS THROUGH PILOT AND PROTOTYPE PROJECTS
UNIT
FY 80
Headquarters
by contract, analyze
ground water Issues
across the country
with Regions, States,
areawides select sites
for ground water proto-
type and Category II
ground water projects
develop and Implement
EPA ground water policy
(thru 83)
develop framework for
Integrated State ground
water programs with OOW,
OSU (thru B4)
Identify target groups and
develop system for Info
transfer; develop public
Info materials (thru 83)
FY 81
develop national policy on
ground water protection for
guidance to States
provide tech/financial
mgt. assist, on ground
water prototypes thru
FMAPt(thru 82)
with other HQ offices.
Regions, and contractors,
help manage prototypes
(thru 82)
select additional
prototype projects;
provide tech, mgt.
assistance to these
FY 82
FY 83
FY 84-85
manage prototype projects
with the Regions, Including
FMAP+asslstance
Initiate transfer of BHP's
to other Federal, State,
areawlde agencies (thru 83)
continue to transfer
BHP's from prototype
projects to other
areas
provide assistance
with consultants to
Regions, States and
areawlde agencies to
Initiate evaluation
of prototype (thru 84)
prepare national
report on controls,
BMP's for ground
water quality problems
Implementation of
report reconmenda-
tlons
continue tech transfer
and public Info pro-
grams
EPA Regions provide technical assist.,
evaluation, funding for
ground water prototype
projects (thru 82)
help select sites for
ground water prototype
projects and ground
water Category II
projects
State and help select sites for
areawlde ground water prototype
agencies projects and propose
Category II ground
water projects
selected State and/or
areawlde agenlces
receive funds to Initiate
ground water prototype
projects and Category II
ground water projects
(thru 82)
help select sites for
additional prototype
projects, provide tech.
assist, eval., funding
for projects
use FMAPt-to provide
financial mgt. assist.
to prototype projects
(thru 82)
Inform and Involve public
In 1mpj£. of ground water
poll, controls (thru 84)
select and manage Category
II ground water projects;
continue management of
prototypes
selected State or areawide
agencies complete work on
ground water prototype
projects
Jmpjement cost-effective
BMPrs~fthru 85)
Initiate evaluation
of prototype projects
(thru 84)
Initiate evaluation
of prototype projects
(thru 84)
assist 1n preparation
and Implementation
of national report
manage State ground
water protection
programs
+.FMAP--F1nancial Management Assistance Project
-------
APPENDIX I
208 - AWT PROTOTYPE PROJECTS
Region
I
II
III
IV
V
IV, V, VI
State
Vermont
Massachusetts
Maine
New Jersey
Delaware
North Carolina
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Ohio
North Carolina,
Louisiana, Arkansas,
Indiana
Washington, Idaho
Project Area
Lower Winooski River
(Burlington, Montpelier)
BTackstone River (Worcester)
Sebasticook River
Musconetcong River
--Kent County (Frederick)
—Coastal Sussex County
(Lewes, Rehobeth Beach)
Greensboro
Statewide (proposed)
Mississippi River
Greater Miami River
Development of a WLA
methodology for inter-
mittent streams
Spokane River
52
-------
APPENDIX II
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE PROJECTS
Name/Location
Rye, NH
Lower Winooski,
Vt.
New Castle
County, Del.
Buncombe County,
NC
Fox River Valley,
WI
Lake Granbury
and Port Lavaca,
TX
Provo, UT
King County,
WA
State of
Connecticut
Timing
Subject
June '80
June '80
June '80
June '80
June '80
June '80
June '80
June '80
June '80
develop a step-by-step finan-
cial analysis of the WQM pro-
cess, including cost-benefits
over time
re-evaluation of AWT decision,
including financial analysis
of the steps in the decision-
making process
re-evaluate a septic system
relief program and cost dis-
tribution policies and admin-
istration
develop a comprehensive sewer
and septic system management
process involving a variety of
public and semi-pub!ic interests
analyze financial management
considerations which are in-
cluded in WLA decisions for
a major river basin
spell out the financial issues
in planning for and financing of
waste water treatment facilities
determine financing mechanisms
and rate structure for a re-
gional waste water treatment
facility
establish a surface water
management system for implemen-
tation of a basin plan
assist municipalities in evaluation
of the fiscal and management
alternatives to mechanical sewage
treatment service
53
-------
APPENDIX III
ABBREVIATIONS FOUND IN THE STRATEGY
Abbreviation
EPA
WQM
WPD
USDA
ASCS
USFS
Title
Environmental Protection Agency
Water Quality Management
Water Planning Division
United States Department of Agriculture
Agriculture Stabilization and Conservation Service
United States Forest Service
BMP
AWT
RCWP
ACP
MIP
NURP
FMAP
GWPP
FIP
Best Management Practices
Advanced Waste Treatment
Rural Clean Water Program
Agricultural Conservation Program
Model Implementation Program
Nationwide Urban Runoff Program
Financial Management Assistance Project
Ground Water Protection Program
Forest Incentive Program
54
-------
REFERENCES
1. 40 CFR Part 35, Subpart G, "Grants for Water Quality Planning, Manage-
ment, and Implementation." Final regulations. May 23, 1979.
2. US-EPA, Water Planning Division, "FY 80 Work Programs." October, 1979.
3. US-EPA, Water Planning Division, "Supplemental Water Quality Manage-
ment Program Guidance for FY 80." September, 1979.
4. US-EPA, Water Planning Division, "EPA-FS Forestry WQM Statement of
Intent." (INFO 79-49). March 2, 1979.
5. US-EPA, Water Planning Division, "Water Quality Management Five Year
Strategy, FY 80 Baseline." August, 1979.
6. US-EPA, Office of Planning and Management, "Agency Operating Year
Guidance for FY 1981." Final to be published in February, 1980.
7. US-EPA, 440/9-76-025, "Basic Water Monitoring Program." 1978 Revision.
*
8. NRDC v. Train 396 F Supp 1386 (D.D.C. 1975), affd sub nom, NRDC v.
Costle 564 F. 2d 573 (D.C. Cir 1977).
9. 40 CFR Part 403, "General Pretreatment Regulations - Existing and New
Sources of Pollution," 43 Fed. Reg. 27736.
10. US-EPA, Water Planning Division, "Ground Water Strategy for the Water
Quality Management Program." January, 1980.
11. US-EPA, Water Planning Division, "Agricultural Nonpoint Source Strategy.11
October, 1979.
12. US-EPA, Water Planning Division, "Small Alternative Wastewater Systems
Strategy," in process.
13. US-EPA, Office of Water and Waste Management, "FY 80 State/EPA Agreement
Guidance." February, 1979.
14. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget,
"Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance." May, 1979.
15. US-EPA, Water Planning Division, "Policy Memorandum A-2, FY 80 Water
Quality Management Funding Policy - Sections 106 and 208." December, 1979.
16. US-EPA, Water Planning Division, "Water Quality/Water Allocation
Coordination Study, Report to Congress in Response to Section 102(d)
of the Clean Water Act." Draft August, 1979.
17. US-EPA, Office of Drinking Water, "Water Supply-Wastewater Treatment
Coordination Study, Report to Congress." August, 1979.
55
-------
18. US-EPA, Office of Water and Waste Management, "Grants and Loans for
Municipal Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment Systems: Water Con-
servation Provisions." Preliminary Final Report of Task Force 11,
July, 1979.
19. US-EPA, Water Planning Division, "Policy Memorandum B-8, Funding of
Waste Load Allocations and Water Quality Analyses for POTW Decisions."
September, 1979.
20. 40 CFR Part 35, Subpart E, Appendix A, "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Guidelines." September 27, 1978.
* U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1980—311-726/3864
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
------- |