NONPOINT SOURCE GUIDANCE
DECEMBER 1987
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF WATER
OFFICE OF WATER REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
WASHINGTON, D.C.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. Introduction
A. Goals 1
B. The State Clean Water Strategy 1
C. Nonpoint Source Management in the State
Clean Water Strategy 2
D. Definition of Nonpoint Source Pollution 3
E. Program Inter-relationships 3
II. Implementation Approach
A. Development of State Assessment Reports
1. Introduction
2. State Assessment Report Requirements 4
3. Explanation
4. Criteria for Approval of State Assessment Reports 8
B. Development of State Management Programs
1. Introduction 11
2 State Management Program Requirements 12
3. Explanation 13
4. Criteria for Approval of State Management Programs.. 16
C Administrative and Other Provisions
1 Deadline for Approval/Partial Approval. . . 19
2. Procedure for Disapproval 19
3. W1’ ch Agency is to Serve as the Lead for the 319 Program. 20
4. Water Quality Management Plan Updates 20
5. States Electing Not to Submit Assessment Reports 20
6. Local Agency Submittal of Management Program 21
7. Annual Reports by States and Report to Congress 21
8. Cooperation Requirement 23
9. Interstate Management Conference . . . 23
10. Indian Tribes 23
11. Technical Assistance 24
III. Grant Application Requirements
A. Section 205(jXS) 25
B. Section 319(h) 28
C. Section 319(i) 32
D. Section 201(g)(l) 32
E. Section 603(c)(2) 32
F. Section 604(b) 33
Appendix A: Definition of Navigable Waters and Waters of the U.S
Appendix B: Major NPS Pollution Categories and Subcategories
Appendix C: NPS Provisions in the Water Quality Act of 1987
-------
NONPOINT SOURCE GUIDANCE
I , INTRODUCTION
A. Goals
The Water Quality Act of 1987 (WQA) states:
it is the national policy that programs for the control
of nonpoint sources of pollution be developed and imple-
mented in an expeditious manner so as to enable the goals
of this Act to be met through the control of both point
and nonpoint sources of pollution.
This goal focuses on the importance of controlling nonpoint sources
of water pollution. With the enactment of section 319 of the WQA,
new dircction and significant Federal financial assistance for the
implementation of State* nonpoint source (NPS) programs has been
authorized. The WQA requires two major reports to be completed by
August 4, 1988: a State Assessment Report describing the State’s
NPS problems and a State Management Program explaining what the State
plans to do in the next four fiscal years to address their NPS problems.
The WflA authorizes financial assistance for developing these reports
and for implementing the State’s NPS Management Program.
B. The State Clean Water Strategy
The 1987 legislation mandates a similar approach in information
collection, assessment, and the subsequent development and implemen-
tation of pollution control mechanisms for targeted areas in the new
Surface Water Toxics Control, Nonpoint Source, Estuary, Clean Lakes,
and Greet- Lakes program areas. These activities, although conducted
under separate program activities, may lead to identifying the same
water resources as being in need of pollution control measures. EPA
is encouraging States to develop State Clean Water Strategies as a
*
In accordance with section 518(e) of the WQA, the Administrator is
authorized to treat Indian tribes as States for the purposes of section
319. Therefore, throughout this guidance the term State shall refer to
States,....Territories, and those Indian tribes designated by the Agency
under section 518(e).
**
State Clean Water Strategies are in essence a vehicle to better
integrate and coordinate State ‘ater programs, and to improve
effectiveness by targeting activities to high priority geographic areas.
For more details on State Clean Water Strategies, see in particular: US
EPA, Office of Water. State Clean Water Strategies: Meeting the
Challenges of the Future , December 1987 and US EPA, Office of Water.
Surface Water and Wetlands Protection Program Operating Guidance FT
1988 , April 1987.
-------
2
means of addressing in a strategic way the variety of water pollution
sources, their inter-relationships and the many water resources that
are threatened.
C. Nonpoirit Source Management In the State Clean Water Strategy
States have the opportunity to design and implement NPS programs as
part of an overall State Clean Water Strategy (SCWS) which unifies
and integrates the States’ entire approach to water quality pro-
tection and clean-up. Building on existing State water pollution
control programs and activities, SCWS’s may be developed in a three
step process: completing a comprehensive assessment of impaired or
threatened waters; targeting or identifying the sequence for protect-
ing water resources; and developing strategic management plans. In
the area of assessments, the SCWS encourages States to consider com-
bining the similar assessment requirements mandated under the Clean
Water Act (CWA) for nonpoint sources (section 319), lakes (section
314), estuaries (section 320), and surface water toxics (section
304(1)). The advantages of combining these assessment are to: help
States identify geographical problems and crossmedia “hot spots”;
make data gaps more apparent; encourage non-traditional, multi-agency
coordination and cooperation; and form the basis for comprehensive
pollution control efforts.
Both the SCWS process and the NPS Guidance call for identifying the
sequence for protecting water resources. Neither the SCWS nor the
NPS Guidance provide a prescriptive ranking and targeting procedure
that States must follow. Rather they provide a general framework
and a set of targeting criteria that States should consider during
the targeting stage of the process. As a practical matter, especially
In the NPS area, States will probably find it both useful and necessary
to carve out a subset of work for concerted action within the multi-year
timeframe of the SCWS. The guiding principle for this step is to
maximize environmental benefit by devoting resources and efforts to
water resources in a priority order that recognizes the values of the
waterbody in question, the benefits to be realized from various control
actions and the controllability of the problem(s).
Again, both the SCWS and the NPS Guidance call for the development of
multi-year strategic plans. Such multi-year strategic plans provide
the connection between the strategic direction and the State’s annual
work plans for carrying out the work over a multi-year period. The
scope of a management plan depends upon whether the State elects to
use a comprehensive, integrated approach or a more traditional pro-
grammatic approach. So long as the CWA requirements for specific
management plans (nonpoint source, Clean Lakes, estuaries) are met,
the State may submit either one comprehensive management plan or
multiple plans covering each of its program areas.
-------
3
D. Definition of Nonpoint Source Pollution
For the purpose of implementing the NPS provisions in the CWA, NPS
pollution is defined as follows:
Nonpoint Source (NPS) Pollution : NPS pollution is caused by diffuse
sources that are not regulated as point sources and normally is associated
with agricultural, silvicultural and urban runoff, runoff from
construction activities, etc. Such pollution results in the human-made or
human-induced alteration of the chemical, physical, biological, and
radiological integrity of water. In practical terms, nonpoint source
pollution does not result from a discharge at a specific, single location
(such as a single pipe) but generally results from land runoff,
precipitation, atmospheric deposition, or percolation. It must
be kept in mind that this definition is necessarily general; legal and
regulatory decisions have sometimes resulted in certain sources being
assigned to eith3r the point or nonpoint source categories because of
considerations ‘ther than their manner of discharge. For example,
irrigation retui n flows are designated as “nonpoint sources” by section
402(1) of the Clean Water Act, even though the discharge is through a
discrete conveyance.
E. Program Inter-relationships
With the WQA, States now have additional support and direction for
comprehensive implementation of NPS controls. EPA will encourage
States to develop NPS programs which build upon related programs
such as Clean Lakes, stuaries, Stormwater Permits, Ground Water,
Toxics Controls, Stati Revolving Funds, and Wetlands; and complement
and increase the effectiveness of State and local NPS programs already
underway. In addition, EPA will encourage States to coordinate their
NPS programs with othe’- Federal agencies. For example, USDA’s Conser-
vation Reserve and Con ;ervation Compliance Programs play an important
role in the implementttion of best management practices to reduce
agricultural NPS pollution.
-------
4
1.1. IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH
This section addresses the basic NPS requirements from section 319 of
the Clean Water Act as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987. States
are encouraged to integrate these section 319 items through their State
Clean Water Strategies into their existing processes and resultant docu-
ments (specifically sections 303(e), 106, 305(b), and water quality
management plans).
A. Development of State Assessment Reports
1. Introduction
State Assessment Reports must describe the nature, extent and
effect of NPS water pollution, the causes of such pollution, and
programs and methods used for controlling this pollution.
In order to avoid duplication and to conserve resources, States should
use their 1988 State 305(b) Reports to meet the requirements of State
Assessment Reports. At a minimum, States should use their 1988
State 305(b) Reports which are due by April 1, 1988 as the formal
mechanism for reporting the list of waters impacted by NPS pollution
and the NPS categories or sources contributing to these impacts
(items 2(A) and 2(B) below). This list of impacted waters may be
updated at any time and should be updated for subsequent State 305(b)
Reports. Other assessment items required by section 319 (items 2(C)
and 2(D) below) may be included in State 305(b) Reports as well but
must be submitted no later than August 4, 1988.
EPA guidance for preparing 1988 State 305(b) Reports identifies the
NPS information to be included in the 305(b) Reports for State
Assessment Reports (See US EPA, Office of Water Regulations and
Standards. Guidelines for the Preparation of the 1988 State Water
Quality Assessment 305(b) Report , April 1, 1987). This section 319
guidance provides a more detailed discussion of the requirements
for State Assessment Reports including EPA approval criteria.
2. State Assessment Report Requirements
(4)
State Assessment Reports shall include the following four categories
of information:
(A) identification of navigable waters within the State which, without
additional action to control nonpoint sources of pollution,
cannot reasonably be expected to attain or maintain applicable
water quality standards or the goals and requirements of the
Act;
(B) identification of categories and subcategories of noripoint sources
or, where appropriate, particular nonpoint sources which add
significant pollution to each portion of the navigable waters
identified under subparagraph (A) in amounts which contribute
to such portion not meeting such water quality standards or
such goals and requirements;
-------
5
(C) description of the process, including intergovernmental
coordination and public participation, for (1) identifying
best management practices and measures to control each category
end subcategory of nonpoint sources and, where appropriate,
particular nonpoint sources identified under subparagraph (B)
and (ii) for reducing, to the maximum extent practicable, the
level of pollution resulting from such category, subcategory,
or source; and
(D) description of State and local programs for controlling pollution
added from nonpoint sources to, and improving the quality of,
each such portion of the navigable waters, including but not
limited to those programs which will receive Federal assistance
under subsection (h) end Ci).
3. Explanation
Sequence - The Assessment Report should be submitted before or
concurrently with the State Management Program
Use Available Information - The Act specifically encourages the
use of existing reports and information for State Assessment Re-
ports in recognition of the timing required by the Act. Assess-
ment data, however, should be reviewed, updated and refined, as
appropriate. The State Assessment Report should clearly identify
navigable waters where available information does not support
reliable assessment, and provide a strategy and timetable for
completing the assessment of these navigable waters.
Process - An open assessment process is to be used to identify NPS
water quality problem areas. All those with an interest in water
quality should be involved in developing the Statewide list of NPS
problem areas. Groups and agencies with interests in fish and
wildlife, recreation, natural resources, agriculture, forestry,
drinking water, etc. should be consulted in the process of identi-
fying such areas. Representatives of environmental groups, indus-
try, regional planning organizations, local governments and the pub-
lic should also participate. This process will help assure that all
available data from diverse agencies and organizations is included,
and that gaps in the data are identified and can be remedied for
future decisions and actions.
What Constitutes NPS-Impacted Waters ? - Consistent with the 305(b)
reporting requirements, States should report on assessed waters
for which the State is able to make a judgment about the degree to
which the designated use is supported. The 1988 305(b) Guidelines
establish two levels of assessment, one reflecting conclusions based
on ambient monitoring data and the other based on other information.
The first level is “monitored” waters in which the assessment
is based on current site-specific ambient data i.e., the ambient
monitoring data are less than five years old. The second level is
“evaluated” waters in which the assessment is based on information
other than current site-specific ambient data, such as data on
sources of pollution, predictive modeling, fishery surveys, citi-
-------
6
zen complaints and ambient data which are older than five years.
In the NPS area, best professional judgment and various evaluation
techniques will play an important role. When using more subjective
evaluation methods, EPA expects that borderline cases will be included
in the list of waters impacted by NPS pollution.
The Assessment Report should include all navigable waters within
the State which exhibit water-quality-limiting NPS problems (see
Appendix A for definition of navigable waters and waters of the
U S.). The Assessment should also indicate the total sizes of
waters in the State by waterbody type (i.e., miles of rivers and
acres of lakes, estuaries and wetlands) that fully support their
designated uses and the total sizes of State waters not assessed.
(This information should be available from State 305(b) Reports.)
High quality waters [ as defined in section 131 12 (a)(2) of the
Water Quality Standards Regulation] in the State where potential
degradation from nonpoint sources due to proposed or actual changes
in cultural activities is a threat, should also be identified.
States should develop their assessments on a watershed-by-watershed
basis. States should not focus only on waters immediately adjacent
to NPS problems, but should also consider downstream segments, lakes
and estuaries where Ni’S pollutants may accumulate and cause water
degradation.
Section 305(b) Waterbody System (WBS ) - A new data management system,
the WBS, is being developed to manage much of the waterbody-specific,
quantitative information concerning surface water quality and sources
of pollution reported by States in their 305(b) submissions. States
should submit the waterbody-specific information required in the
State NPS Assessment (i.e., the list of waters impacted by NPS
pollution and the categories of sources of NPS pollution for each
of these waterbodies) in a written form in a format consistent with
the WBS (preferably using WBS input forms). EPA will work through
contractors to get the data into the WBS during the summer of 1988.
Use of the actual WBS computer system by the States is optional in
FY 1988. States should consult the Guidelines for the Preparation
of the 1988 305(b) Report and the WBS Users Manual for guidance in
developing and formatting their information.
Wetlands - States should Include arty information on known wetlands
impacted by nonpoint sources in their NPS Assessment Report.
Ground Water - States should include information on any known or
suspected ground-water problems caused by nonpoint sources in their
NPS Assessment Report. Any ground-water information included in
a State’s Assessment Report should be consistent with the State’s
ground-water protection strategies. States are encouraged to
refer to EPA’s Office of Ground-Water Protection’s guidance on the
Welihead Protection Program which contains a section on “source
identification” (US EPA, Office of Ground-Water Protection. Guidance
for Applicants for State Wellhead Protection Program Assistance
Funds Under the Safe Drinking Water Act , June 1987, p. 21).
-------
7
Landownership - States should identify water quality problems due to
NPS pollution from all lands regardless of landownership (Federal!
State/local/private).
Categories and Subcategories - The categories, subcategories or
sources of NPS pollution which add pollution to the NPS-impacted
waters included in the Assessment should be identified. Categories
should be identified for each listed wate body. Particular nonpoint
sources or specific sources which add pollution to an identified
waterbody should also be identified and reported where known. States
should use the computer codes established for the major NPS pollution
categories and subcategories listed in Appendix B for reporting in
their State Assessment Reports. For a State’s own implementation
purposes, it may need to further subdivide the major categories and
subcategories of NPS pollution, or may want to define its nonpoint
sources differently. If a State identifies an entirely new category
of nonpoint sources, it should contact EPA (Monitoring and Data
Support Division, WH-553, Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
Office of Water, Washington, DC 20460) to have a new computer code
assigned to the source.
Process for Defining BMPs - The Assessment Report must describe
the process, including intergovernmental coordination and public
participation, used for identifying best management practices.
This coordination/public participation requirement recognizes that
NPS management often requires the coordination of numerous agencies
and organizations which may be affected by NPS management decisions.
States are required to describe the process for identifying BMPs in
their Assessment Reports. In the Management Program, States must
include more details on BMPs including lists of BMPs which are
generally considered appropriate for the various categories and
subcategories of NPS pollution.
Identification of NPS Programs - The Assessment Report must describe
State and local programs to be used in the implementation of State
NPS management programs [ including programs for which the State
intends to seek funding under sections 319(h) and (1)]. This will
serve as a cataloging of existing tools and will help identify
the need to develop new and additional tools and approaches to NPS
control as part of State NPS Management Programs. Section 319
requires States to describe their NPS programs in both their Assess-
ment Report and State Management Program. This is duplicative, but
EPA will expect greater detail to be provided in the Management
Program.
Over the years, many States have developed highly successful and
innovative NPS control programs including low-interest loans to
farmers, assistance to landowners or landusers in targeted water-
sheds, statewide regulation of erosion from construction sites and
urban stormwater runoff, forest practice requirements and others.
-------
8
New programs are expected to go well beyond existing programs and
should build on and strengthen the solid successes developed by the
States over the years.
Public Notice and Opportunity for Public Comment - The State must
provide public notice of the availability of the State’s Assessment
Report for public review and provide an opportunity for public
comment prior to submittal to EPA.
Transmittal of Reports - States are encouraged to submit drafts
of their Assessment Reports to Regional NPS Coordinators prior to
formal submission. Copies of final Assessment Reports submitted
as a part of State 305(b) Reports should be submitted to Regional
305(b) Coordinators. Three copies should be submitted to NPS
Coordinators.
If Assessment Reports are completed prior to submission of 1988
305(b) Reports, three copies of the Assessment Report should be
submitted to Regional NPS Coordinators. States should incorporate
their NPS Assessment information in their 1988 305(b) Reports which
are due by April 1, 1988.
At a minimum, States should use their 1988 State 305(b) Reports to
identify the list of waters impacted by NPS pollution and the NPS
categories or sources contributing to this impact. The other two
Assessment items required by section 319 (process for identifying
BMPs and description of State/local NPS programs) may be included
in State 305(b) Reports as well but must be submitted no later
than August 4, 1988.
4. Criteria for Approval of State Assessment Reports
Following are the criteria that EPA will use in evaluating a State’s
Assessment Report:
(A) Navigable waters impacted by nonpoint sources
[ section 319(a)(1)(A)J
o Has available Statewide information regarding the State’s
NPS problems been analyzed and summarized in the Assessment
Report including any available information developed pur-
suant to sections 208, 303(e), 304(f), 305(b), 314, and 320,
and NPS information prepared for America’s Clean Waters,
The States’ Nonpoint Source Assessment 1985 , Association of
State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators?
o Has the list of waters impacted or threatened by NPS pollution
and the pollution categories or sources contributing to
this impact been integrated with the State’s 305(b) Report
consistent with the EPA Guidelines?
o Has the assessment basis (i.e., monitored or evaluated) for
reported waters been identified?
-------
9
o Have the specific waterbodies impacted or threatened by NPS
pollution and the NPS pollution categories or sources contri-
buting to this impact been identified and have such data
been provided in a compatible format for inclusion in the
305(b) Waterbody System data base (use of the actual Waterbody
computer system will be optional in FY 1988)?
o Has the list of waters impacted or threatened by NPS pollution
been reported on a watershed-by-watershed basis?
o Have interstate/international waters been considered?
o If all navigable waters have not been completely assessed,
does the State have a strategy and expeditious timetable
for improving the quality of its assessment?
(B) Categories of nonpoint sources impacting State waters
[ section 319(a)(1)(B)]
o Has the State specifically identified the categories and
subcategories or sources of NPS pollution for each of the
impacted or threatened navigable waters identified above?
(C) Intergovernmental coordination and public participation for
identifying B 1Ps [ section 319(a)(l)(C)]
o Were groups and agencies with water quality and resource
interests provided an opportunity to review proposed best
management practices for the categories and subcategories
of nonpoint sources?
(D) Identification of existing State and local NPS control programs
(section 319(a)(l)(D)1
o Has the State provided a comprehensive summary of all existing
State and local NPS control programs and explained how the
new assistance provided by section 319(h) and (i) will help
support its NPS programs?
o Has there been adequate consideration of the development of
the listings of programs with local, State and Federal agencies?
(E) Public notice and opportunity for public comment [ section 319(a)(l)]
o Have other groups with water quality and resource interests
been actively involved in the process of defining the NPS
water quality problem areas, identifying the sources impacting
or threatening these waters, and identifying BNPs e.g., have
fish and wildlife, recreational, agricultural, forestry,
drinking water, and wetland protection agencies etc., partici-
pated in developing the Assessment?
o Has the State issued a public notice on the availability of
the State Assessment Report for public review and provided an
-------
10
opportunity for public comment prior to submitting the Report
to EPA?
o Does the review process generally conform to 40 CFR 25 for
public participation? States have the flexibility to design
whatever type of public participation strategy they wish
including workshops, advisory groups and public hearings, but
the administration of the chosen activities should be in
accordance with the procedures outlined in 40 CFR 25.
-------
11
B. Development of State Management Programs
1. Introduction
State nagement Programs should provide an overview of a State’s
NPS programs as well as a summary of what the State intends to
actomplish in the next four fiscal years -beginning after the date
of program submission. EPA trusts that development of State Manage-
ment Programs will help States move toward viable, long-range NPS
management programs.
State Management Programs should be submitted by the Governor of each
State, for that State or in combination with adjacent States, after
notice and opportunity for public comment. State Management Programs
should be submitted to the appropriate Regional NPS Coordinator by
August 4, 1988.
While the Assessment Report identifies the overall dimensions of
the State’s NPS water quality problems, a State will probably find
it both useful and necessary to carve out a subset of these waters
in its State Management Program for concerted action on a watershed-
by-watershed basis over the next four years Such targeting will
provide the greatest opportunity for achieving visible water quality
improvements in the short run. In addition, States should develop
Statewide program approaches to address NPS problems such as con-
struction erosion, urban stormwater runoff from developing areas,
forestry practices, or other types of NPS problems.
States are encouraged to target or identify the sequence for
protecting their water resources based on a comparative evaluation
of the State’s waters. The guiding principles in evaluating a State’s
waters are to maximize environmental benefit by devoting resources
and eftorts to water resources in a priority order that recognizes
the valLes of the waterbody in question, the benefits to be realized
from various control actions (including evidence of local public
interest and support), and the controllability of the problem(s).
States should consider the following factors in targeting NPS problem
areas:
o What waterbodies are most valuable from various perspectives- -
aquatic habitat, recreation, and water supply for example?
o What waterbodies are subject to adverse effects from both
pollution and aquatic habitat destruction (wetlands), and can
be impacted by water programs?
o What tools are available to address the waterbodies identified?
o What areas are most likely to be improved through governmental
action?
o Which problems are most amenable to the available tools and controls?
-------
12
o What is the degree of public support (local or statewide) to
protect a particular aquatic resource?
o how willing are other governmental agencies to take steps to
use their tools and resources to help address the problem?
o Where would “combined actions’ offer the greatest benefit
relative to the value of the aquatic resource?
States are encouraged to refer to an EPA Office of Water Regulations
and Standards’ technical publication called Setting Priorities: The
Key to Nonpoint Source Pollution Control for more details on effective
NPS targeting approaches (US EPA. Office of Water Regulations and
Standards, Setting Priorities: The Key to Nonpoint Source Pollution
Control , July 1987). The NPS targeting strategy, as presented in
this document, complements the targeting concept in the State Clean
Water Strategy Guidance; more specifically, it is intended to present
successful State approaches to targeting NPS water pollution control
problems.
States should, where appropriate, supplement the funding of existing
NPS projects in order to demonstrate the benefits of NPS projects
within the four year program.
The State Management Program needs to be balanced between the priority
problems the State identifies and implementation of Statewide NPS
programs. Examples of Statewide NPS programs include Statewide
regulatiors for forestry, grazing, or construction erosion control,
or Statewide educational programs aimed at protecting water resources
from NPS impacts. Targeted water quality projects and Statewide
programs .hould be directed at either improving degraded waer quality
or preven:ing NPS impacts in high quality waters.
2. State Management Proarwn Requirements
State Maragement Programs shall include the following six categories
of infortiation:
(A) best management practices and measures which will be used
to reduce pollutant loadings resulting from each category,
suhcategory, or particular nonpoint source designated in the
State’s Assessment Report, taking into account the impact of
the practice on ground-water quality.
(B) programs (including, as appropriate, nonregulatory or
regulatory programs for enforcement, technical assistance,
financial assistance, education, training, technology transfer,
and demonstration projects) to achieve implementation of the
best management practices designated under subparagraph (A).
(C) a schedule containing annual milestones for (i) utilization of
the program implementation methods identified in subpara-
graph (B), and (ii) implementation of the the best management
practices identified in subparagraph (A) by the categories,
-------
13
subcategories, or particular nonpoirtt sources designated in the
State’s Assessment Report. Such schedule shall provide for
utilization of the best management practices at the earliest
practicable date.
(D) a certification by the attorney general of the State or States
(or the chief attorney of any State water pollution concrol
agency which has independent legal counsel) that the laws of
the State or States, as the case may be, provide adequate
authority to implement such management program or, if there is
not adequate authority, a list of such additional authorities
as will be necessary to implement such management program and a
schedule and commitment by the State or States to seek such
additional authorities as expeditiously as practicable.
(E) sources of Federal and other assistance and funding [ other than
assistance provided under subsections (h) and (i)] which will be
available in each of such fiscal years for supporting imple-
mentation of such practices and measures and the purposes for
which such assistance will be used in each of such fiscal years.
(F) the Federal financial assistance programs and Federal development
projects for which the State will review individual assistance
applications or development projects for their effect on water
quality pursuant to the procedures set forth in Executive Order
12372 as in effect on September 17, 1983, to determine whether
such assistance applications or development projects would be
consistent with the program prepared under this subsection; for
the purposes of this subparagraph, identification shall not
be limited to the assistance programs or development projects
suhiect to Executive Order 12372 but may include any programs
hsted in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
which may have an effect on the purposes and objectives of the
State’s nonpoint source pollution management program.
3. Explanation
As required by the Act, States should develop Management Programs
to the maximum extent practicable on a watershed-by-watershed basis.
State NPS Management Programs should focus geographically on NPS
priority areas identified through a comparative evaluation of the
State’s waters. Management strategies should comprehensively address
the NPS problems in the watersheds targeted for implementation,
regardless of landownership (Federal/State/local/private). In
addition, States should develop Statewide program approaches to
address various, types of nonpoint sources.
The Act requires six principal categories of information to be
included in State NPS Management Programs and each category as well
as other items are discussed below:
Best Management Practices (BMPs ) - State programs must identify the
BMPs which will be used to reduce pollution from each of the categor-
ies or subcategories of NPS pollution, taking into account the
-------
14
impact of the proposed practices on ground-water quality.
States are required to consider the impact of best management
practices on ground water. This is due to the intimate hydrologic
relationship that often exists between surface and ground water,
and the possibility that measures taken to reduce contaminants in
surface water runoff may increase transport of these contaminants
to ground water.
The range of detail regarding BNPs in State submittals may vary
from lists of BMPs which are generally considered appropriate for
the various categories and subcategories of NPS pollution to detailed
watershed plans. However, grant applications which seek support
for specific demonstration watershed projects under sections 319
or 205(j)(5) should contain more specific information on the types
and amount of BMPs needed for particular projects (see section on
Demonstration Projects under Grant Application Requirements).
NPS Programs - States must identify the nonregulatory and regulatory
programs including enforcement, technical assistance, financial
assistance, education, training, technology transfer, demonstration
projects and monitoring/evaluation to assist in the development and
implementation of BtlPs. The lead and cooperating agencies for
carrying out these programs should be identified and their responsi-
bilities clearly identified.
Section 319(h)(7) states that Federal funds from this section
may be used for financial assistance to individuals only to the ex-
tent that such assistance is related to the costs of “demc.nstratjon
projects.” The Conference Report accompanying the Act (Report
99-1004) explains the limitations regarding “ demonstration projects: ”
States may use Federal funds authorized by the bill for
financial assistance to individuals only insofar as the
assistance is related to costs of implementing demonstra-
tion projects. Federal funds are not to be used as a
general subsidy or for general cost sharing to support
implementation of best management practices. However, a
State is not precluded from using or directing other
funds for cost sharing or other incentive programs if it
chooses. The term “demonstration projects” includes pro-
jects designed to educate individuals as to the use of
best management practices and to demonstrate their feasi-
bility and utility as well as research projects to estab-
lish the cost effectiveness of particular BMPs.
Schedule - State programs will include a schedule containing annual
milestones for the four year program. Milestones built into the four
year program will provide an opportunity to gauge effectiveness of
programs and to make needed mid-course corrections. Annual work
programs included in grant applications must include commitments to
meet the four year Management Program. Examples of milestones in-
clude: anticipated improvements in water quality, water use or achieve-
ment of water quality standards; numbers and types of BHPs implemented;
-------
15
reports completed; NPS-related laws passed; and NPS programs established.
Certification of Adequacy of State Laws - The State must certify
that existing State laws are adequate to carry out the proposed pro-
gram or the Management Program must contain a stated intent to seek
additional needed authority. If additional legal authority is needed,
the schedule for seeking such authority should be adequately expeditious
to allow implementation within the four-year Management Program.
Funding Sources - The Management Program should identify sources of
Federal and other assistance and funding other than that provided
by sections 319(h) and (i) which will be used to carry out the
State’s NPS Management Program in each of the four fiscal years.
Federal Consistency - State Management Programs should identify any
individual Federal financial assistance programs or Federal devel-
opment projects to be reviewed by the State for their consistency
with its proposed State NPS Management Program. According to the
Congressional Record on January 14, 1987, this requirement is based
on Executive Order 12372, as in effect on September 17, 1983*, which
replaces 0MB Circular A-95 and establishes procedures by
which State authorities may comment upon applications for
Federal assistance and Federal development projects to assure
that the federally supported activities and projects are con-
sistent with State needs and objectives. This bill assures
that the provisions of the Executive order, as in effect on
September 17, 1983, will be applicable to the State’s implemen-
tation of this review process, with respect to its nonpoint
source management program, regardless of any subsequert revisions
of the Executive order. The bill also allows States to designate
any Federal assistance program or development project listed
in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, rather
than just those programs and projects subject to the current
Executive Order 12372. The purpose of this provision is to
allow the States to review any Federal program or project
that the State determines needs to be reviewed for consistency
with its nonpoint management program. This provision builds
upon established procedures for State review of Federal
activities. It will provide the States with an important tool
to assure that proposed Federal assistance and development
projects are implemented in a manner which the State deems
consistent with its nonpoint source pollution management program.
,f.
Executive Order 12372 titled “Intergovernmental Review of Federal
Programs” was issued July 14, 1982. This Executive Order was
subsequently amended on April 8, 1983 by Executive Order 12416 also
titled “intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.” Thus, the
reference to the “Executive Order 12372, as in effect on September 1?,
1983,” includes the amendments added by Executive Order 12416.
-------
16
The Administrator is required to transmit to the Office of Management
and Budget and appropriate Federal agencies a list of the assistance
programs and development projects which each State has identified
for review pursuant to the procedures set forth in Executive Order
12372, as In effect on September 17, 1983. Beginning no later than
60 days thereafter each Federal agency is required to amend applicable
regulations so that individual assistance applications and projects
for the identified programs and development projects are submitted
for State review. In addition, the appropriate agencies and depart-
ments of the Federal Government are required to accomodate, according
to the requirements and definitions of the Executive Order, concerns
the State may express about consistency of such applications or
projects with the State’s NPS Management Program.
( Note : More detailed information on how to carry out the Federal
consistency provisions is currently being developed.)
Public Notice and Opportunity for Public Comment - States should
actively involve other groups with water quality and resource
interests in the development of State Management Programs. In
addition, the State shall provide a public notice on the availability
of the State’s Management Program for public review and must provide
an opportunity for public comment prior to submittal to EPA. Also,
within ten days of receipt of a specific Management Program, the
appropriate EPA Regional Office will provide public notice that they
have received such Management Program.
4. Criteria for Approval of State Management Programs
Following are the criteria that EPA will use in evaluating a State’s
Management Program:
(A) Identification of BMPs [ section 319(b)(2)(A)]
o Are appropriate NPS BMPs identified for each of the
categories and subcategories of nonpoint sources identified
in the State’s Assessment Report?
o Has the impact of these BMPs on ground-water quality
been considered?
(B) Identification of needed implementation programs
jsection 319(b)(2)(B)]
o Are the implementation programs (i.e., education,
technical/financial assistance, enforcement, etc.) to be
used identified?
o Are the lead and cooperating agencies responsible for
the State’s NPS programs identified and are their
responsibilities clearly identified?
o Are implementation programs developed on a watershed-by-
watershed basis, to the extent practicable (there is
-------
17
recognition that Statewide program approaches are needed
to address certain NPS problems)?
o If the NPS programs include financial assistance to
individuals (cost-sharing), are the Federal 319(h) costs
related only to supporting the costs of demonstration
projects, as required by section 3l9(h)(7)?
(C) Implementation milestones [ section 319(b)(2)(C))
o Have milestones been scheduled during the four year
program to allow for implementation, evaluation of program
effectiveness and any necessary mid-course corrections?
For example, have goals been established for individual
watersheds regarding how many BMPs will be implemented by
what iate or what water quality improvements are expected,
or has a schedule been established for the development of
certa.n NPS regulations?
CD) Certification of the attorney general of adequate State
authority [ section 319(b)(2)(D)]
o If a State’s authorities are not adequate, is there a schedule
for obtaining adequate authority to support needed implementa-
tion within the timeframe of the four year section 319 program?
(E) Source; of Federal and other assistance and funding
[ secti n 319(b)(2)(E))
o Does the Management Program explain how State and local funds,
oth r related EPA programs [ other than 319(h) and (i)], and
othr Federal programs affecting NPS control will be integrated
and utilized as part of an overall State NPS Management Program
e.g., other EPA programs such as 314, 320, 117, etc. and other
Federal agency programs such as USDA’s Conservation Reserve
Program?
(F) Consistency of Federal programs with State NPS requirements
[ section 3l9(b)(2)(F)]
o Is the State’s identification of Federal financial assistance
- programs and Federal development projects to be reviewed
specific enough to allow EPA to identify the programs/projects
clearly to the appropriate Federal agency?
(G) Public notIce and opportunity for public comment [ section 319(b)(1)]
o Have other groups with water quality and resource interests
been actively involved in the process of developing the State
Management Program e.g., have fish and wildlife, recreational,
agricultural, forestry, drinking water and wetlands protection
agencies, etc., participated in developing the Management
Program?
-------
18
o Has the State issued a public notice on the availability of
the State Management Program for public review and provided
an opportunity for public comment prior to submitting the
Report to EPA?
-------
19
C. Administrative and Other Provisions
1. Deadline f or Approval/Partial Approval
The NPS Assessment Report and Management Program should be
submitted to the appropriate EPA Regional Office no later than
August 4, 1988. The Regional Administrator must either approve
or disapprove a State’s Assessment Report or Management Program
not later than 180 days after the date of submittal. The Regional
Administrator must approve the Assessment Report in its entirety
but may approve a portion of a Management Program. These items
may be approved separately or concurrently.
If the Regional Administrator does not disapprove an Assessment
Report, Management Program, or portion of a Management Program
in such 180 day period, such Assessment Report, Management
Program or portion of a Management Program shall be deemed
approved for the purposes of section 319.
2. Procedure for Disapproval
The Act provides that, after notice and opportunity for public
comment and consultation with appropriate Federal and State
agencies and other interested persons, the Regional Adminis-
trator may disapprove a State’s Assessment Report and/or
Management Program. Criteria for disapproval include:
(A) the proposed Assessment Report and Management Program
or any portion thereof does not meet the requirements
of subsections (a)(l) and (b)(2) of section 319, re-
spectively, or is not likely to satisfy, in who ’- or
in part, the goals and requirements of this Act,
(B) adequate authority does not exist, or adequate resources
are not available, to implement such program or portion;
(C) the schedule for implementing such program or portion
is not sufficiently expeditious; or
(D) the practices and measures proposed in such program
or portion are not adequate to reduce the level of
pollution in navigable waters in the State resulting
-- from nonpoint sources and to improve the quality of
navigable waters in the State.
If any sucl f determinations are made, the Regional Administrator
shall then, within 180 days of the receipt of the proposed
Assessment or Program, notify the State of any revisions or
modifications necessary to obtain approval. The State shall
thereupon have an additional three months to submit its revised
Assessment or Management Program and the Regional Administrator
shall approve or disapprove such revised submittals within
three months of receipt.
-------
20
3. Which Agency is to Serve as the Lead for the 319 Program
States should identify one State agency to serve as the lead
agency for the section 319 program. Given the diversity of
nonpoint pollution sources, EPA believes that State water
quality agencies are generally in the best position to carry
out the overall NPS assessment and program development require-
ments of section 319. However, a Governor, in consultation
with the appropriate EPA Regional Administrator, may designate
an agency other than the State water quality agency to serve
as the lead In developing the State’s NPS program. In such
cases, the proposed agency must have the capability to develop
both a comprehensive NPS water quality assessment and NPS
management program. rn any case, the Governor’s designee will
ultimately be the recipient of section 205(j)(5) or 319 NPS grants.
As a practical matter, once a State’s overall NPS program is
approved by the EPA Regional Administrator, numerous agencies
will likely be involved in the actual implementation of specific
NPS water pollution control programs. For example, State water
quality, natural resources, soil conservation, drinking water
and other agencies, as well as Federal, local and areawide
agencies will be Involved. We expect the lead NPS agency to
submit consolidated section 2O5(j)(5) or 319 grants which the
lead State NPS agency will then allocate as appropriate, probably
through State memoranda of understanding, among its implementing
agencies.
4. Water Quality Management Plan Updates
States may incorporate their NPS Assessment and Management
Programs into their water quality management (WQH) plan or
areawide waste treatment management plan developed and updated
in accordance with the provisions of section 205(j), 208, and
303 of the Act, 40 CFR Part 130 (the Water Quality Planning and
Management regulation), and State requirements. The NPS Assess-
ment and Management Program may be included in the State’s WQM
Plan or referenced as part of the WQM plan if contained in
separate documents.
5. States Electing Not to Submit Assessment Reports
If..-a Governor of a State elects not to submit an Assessment
Report by the August 4, 1988 deadline, the Regional Administrator
shall, within 30 months after the date of enactment of the
amendments estab1ishing section 319, prepare for such State a
Report which makes the identifications that are required, by
law and the guidance, for the State Assessment Report. Upon
completion of this requirement and providing notice and oppor-
tunity to comment, EPA will report to Congress on this action.
-------
21
6. Local Agency Submittal of Management Program
If a State elects not to submit a Management Program or if the
Regional Administrator does not approve such a Management Program,
a local public agency or organization which has expertise in,
and authority to control, NPS pollution may, with State approval,
submit a Management Program. Such agency or organization must
be of “sufficient geographic size” as determined by the Regional
Administrator and may request technical assistance from EPA in
the development of such Management Program.
After development of such Management Program, such agency or
organization shall submit the Management Program through the State
to the appropriate Regional Administrator. If the program is
approved, such agency or organization shall be eligible to receive
financial assistance under section 319(h) for implementation of
the Management Program. Such financial assistance shall be subject
to the same terms and conditions as assistance provided to a State
under section 319(h), including that both an Assessment Report and
Management Program must be completed prior to award of a grant
under section 319(h).
7. Annual Reports by States and Reports to Congress
(A) Annual State Reports Required - Starting November 1, 1987,
and each September 1 thereafter, each State will report to
its respective EPA Regional Office, concerning:
(1) the amount, purpose and utilization of grants received
by the State under subsections 319(h) and (i), 205(j)(5),
and 201(g)(l); and funds used under 603(c)(2);
(2) its progress in meeting milestones detailed irL its
Management Program; and
(3) to the extent that appropriate information is available,
reductions in nonpoint source pollutant loading and im-
provements in water quality for those waters reported in
the State’s Assessment Report.
The Annual Reports will be consolidated by the Regions and
forwarded to EPA Headquarters no later than November 20 in
1987 and in the following years by September 20.
The first Annual Report due November 1, 1987 should consist
of a 1 tter from the State regarding the status of its NPS
program. For example, the letter should note when and if
the State expects to submit an Assessment Report and Manage-
ment Program, and the status of NPS activities supported
with 205(j)(5) funds.
-------
22
(B) EPA Annual Report Required - The Administrator will
consolidate, edit and add to State and Regional reports
and submit to Congress his report by January 1, 1988, and
each January 1 thereafter, on the activities and programs
implemented under section 319 and the progress made in
reducing NPS water pollution and improving the quality of
affected waters. -
(C) Final Report - The Administrator’s report of January 1,
1990 is referred to in the Act as the “Final Report.”
In this report the Congress is asking for an evaluation of
the activities carried out to that date under section 319.
[ The filing of the 1989-90 “Final Report” does not change
the requirement for subsequent annual reports in the manner
and fashion of the ‘87-’88 reports called for by paragraphs
(A) and (B), above. I
Specifically, States will report the following information
in the September 1, 1989 submittal, in addition to that
information asked for under subparagraph (A) above:
(1) the management programs implemented by the State by
types and amount of affected waters, categories and
subcategories of nonpoint sources, and types of best
management practices being implemented;
(2) the experiences of the State in adhering to schedules
and implementing best management practices;
(3) what further actions need to be taken to attain and
maintain in NPS targeted waters (i) applicable water
quality standards, and (ii) the goals and require-
ments of the Act;
(4) recommendations concerning needed future programs
(including enforcement programs) for controlling
pollution from nonpoint sources; and
(5) programs and activities of departments, agencies and
instrumentalities of the United States which are
inconsistent with the State’s Management Program and
recommended modifications so that such activities and
programs would become consistent with and assist the
States in implementation of their Management Program.
[ Note Separate technical information is being developed to
provide a format for preparation of the State Annual Reports
and the Final Report. This format would allow for reporting
of progress in specific NPS projects and reductions in NPS
loadings and related water quality improvements.]
-------
23
8. Cooperation Requirement
States should seek the cooperative involvement of regIonal
planning agencies, local governments, and other public and
private agencies and organizations in the development of their
A5sessment Report and Management Program. Section 3l9(c)Cl)
specifically requires the Assessment -Report and Management
Program
be developed in cooperation with local, substate,
regional, and interstate entities which are actively
planning for the implementation of nonpoint source
pollution controls and have either been certified by
the Administrator in accordance with section 208, have
worked jointly with the State on water quality manage-
ment planning under section 205(j), or have been desig-
nated by the State legislative body or Governor as
water quality management planning agencies for their
geographic areas.
In addition, section 319(b)(3) requires States to the maximum
extent practicable to involve local public and private agencies
and organizations which have expertise in control of NPS pollu-
tion in the development and implementation of State Management
Programs.
9. Interstate Management Conference
If waters in a State are impaired by NPS pollution from another
State, the State may petition the Regional Administrator to
cnnvene, and he shall convene, a conference of the affected
States. If the Regional Administrator finds that waters in a
State are not meeting standards because of NPS pollutior origin-
ating in another State, EPA shall notify such State(s). The
Regional Administrator may, whether or not petitioned to do
so, convene a management conference between such States not
later than 180 days after giving notification. The purpose of
such conference shall be to develop an agreement to control
such interstate NPS pollution.
To the extent that States reach agreement through such a
conference, the Management Programs of the States that are
parties to the agreement and contribute the NPS pollution will
be revised to reflect such agreement.
10. Indian Tribes
Section 518(f) establishes that not more than one-third of one
percent of the amount appropriated for any fiscal year under
section 319 may be used to make grants to Indian tribes. Indian
tribes must meet the requirements of section 319(h) as well as
meet the three criteria in section 518(e) of the Act in order
to receive such grants.
-------
24
11. Technical Assistance
Upon request of a State or a local public agency or organization,
EPA may provide technical assistance in carrying out the pro-
visions of section 319. This technical assistance will be
provided (to the extent resources are available) by EPA Regional
NPS staff in most instances with backup assistance from EPA
Headquarters’ NPS staff.
Pursuant to section 319(e), EPA will collect and make available
through publications and other means information regarding
management practices and implementation methods. For example,
information will be developed on the costs and relative effi-
ciencies of best management practices for reducing NPS pollution,
and available data concerning the impact of best management
practices on water quality.
Major technical assistance activities planned for FY 1988 include:
providing assistance to the States in the development of Assess-
ment Reports and Management Programs; issuing a NPS monitoring
and evaluation guide; providing information on the effectiveness
and costs of best management practices; completing a stream
methodology started under the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program
for analyzing water quality effects of urban runoff; and
developing a methodology for incorporating nonpoint sources
into wasteload allocations.
-------
25
IlL GRANT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
Federal financial support is authorized from six new sections escablished
by the WQA to support activities related to NPS control. While each of
these fundi ’g sources is discussed separately below, and will generally
require a separate grant application, States are encouraged to dwelop
coordinated work programs using these various- funding sources. Grant
funding under each of these sections is subject to the availability of
appropriations.
A. Section 205(j)(5)
This section of the Act provides a set-aside of up to 1% of each
State’s construction grant allotment or a minimum of $100,000 to
be used for developing a State’s NPS Assessment Report and Management
Program (program development) and for implementing an approved
Management Program (implementation).
Grant Application Requirements - To use these funds, States need to
prepare a grant application which includes:
1. an EPA Form 5700-33 properly completed,
2. an EPA Form 5700-48 properly completed;
3. a certification on the grant application that the requirements
of E.O. 12372 have been met;
4. a brief narrative statement explaining how the funds will be
used and how use of these funds will be coordinated with other
funds devoted to NPS activities;
5. a section-by-section description of each task, including
outputs, to be funded;
6. one table for evaluation and other purposes, listing
(a) each of the tasks,
(b) the outputs to be accomplished, by each task,
(c) funding for each task,
(d) the number of person-years devoted to each task, and
Ce) a schedule of when outputs are to be completed; and
7. if needed, a statement assuring that the State will maintain
during the grant period its average annual level of expendi-
tures for NPS activities for FY 1985 and FY 1986 and esta-
blishing such an expenditure level (see separate discussion
of maintenance of effort).
These requirements are in accordance with the Administrator’s
Policy on Performance Based Assistance dated May 31, 1985.
The grant application/work program must be adequately integrated
and coordinated with other water quality management activities
-------
26
supported under CWA sections 106, 117, 2 O1(g)(1), non-CMAG 205(g),
205(j)(1), 314, 319(h) and (i), 320, 603(c)(2), 604(b), and with
State matching or maintenance-of-effort funds all of which may be
contributing input to the NPS Assessment and Management Program.
In addition, grant applications must also be integrated and coordi-
nated with ground-water and wetlands activities.
Match - 205(J)(5) funds are reserved “for the purpose of carrying
out section 319,” i.e., to develop a State’s NPS Assessment Report
and Management Program and to implement an approved Management
Program. The Senate Report 99-50 issued on May 14, 1985, states
that section 205(j)(5) grants must meet the Federal/non-Federal
share requirements. Section 319(h)(3) indicates that the Federal
share “of the cost incurred by the State in implementing such man-
agement program” (emphasis added) shall be matched. Therefore, no
match is required for 205(j)(5) funds which are used to develop a
State’s NPS Assessment and Nangagement Program. However, 205(j)(5)
grant funds used for implementation of NPS activities identified in
the State’s approved NPS Management Program must be matched. The
Federal share for such implementation activities shall not exceed
60%.
Use of 205(j)(5) Funds and Award Mechanisms - Section 205(j)(5)
funds may not be awarded for NPS implementation activities until a
State’s NPS Assessment Report and Management Program are approved.
After such approval, section 205(j)(5) funds may be used for imple-
menting approved State NPS Management Programs.
Section 205(j)(5) funds used for program development (developing
Assessment Reports and Management Programs) are to be awarded under
205(j)(5). Section 205(j)(5) funds used for implementing .1ar agement
Programs will be awarded under 319(h). Given these different award
mechanisms, EPA Regions will award separate grants for 205(j)(5)
funds used for either of these two purposes i.e., States must submit
two separate grant applications. Section 205(j)(5) funds used for
implementation activities must also meet other requirements (i.e.,
match, maintenance of effort, etc.) which are discussed below in
the section on “Other Restrictions and Requirements.”
Implementation Activities - In addressing the subject of implementa-
tion, the Act calls for:
an identification of programs (including, as appropri-
ate, nonregulatory or regulatory programs for enforcement,
technical, assistance, financial assistance, education,
training, technology transfer, and demonstration projects)
to achieve implementation of best management practices.
Such activities, when included in a State’s Management Program,
shall be considered eligible implementation activities for funding
under sections 205(j)(5) and 319(h). In addition, design of specific
best management practices (BMPs) and the provision of financial
assistance to individuals for the physical installation of BMPs
is eligible in the case of “demonstrations.” Also, financial
-------
27
assistance provided to municipalities end other public entities
is an eligible implementation activity.
Other Restrictions and Requirements - Generally, the restrictions
and requirements of 319(h) in addition to match (e.g., the priority
considerations, maintenance of effort, restrictions on financial
assistance to individuals, availability for obligation, requirement
for annual reports, limitation on administrative costs and satis-
factory progress) apply to section 205(j)(5) funds used to support
implementation activities . When section ZOS(j)(S) grant funds
are used for program development, the restrictions and requirements
of section 319(h) do not apply. For a more detailed discussion of
these restrictions and requirements, please see the following
section B of this guidance.
Obligation of 205(j)(5) Funds - Section 205(j)(5) funds used for
program development may be obligated in the year in which they are
appropriated as well as in the following year, pursuant to section
205(d). The availability for obligation provision of section
319(h)(6) applies to section 319(h) as well as section 205(j)(5)
funds used for implementation, and therefore, such funds must be
obligated in the year in which they are appropriated. EPA may
reallot to other States any funds not so obligated or may renego-
tiate with the State a schedule for use of the funds.
Demonstration Projects - When section 205(j)(5) [ or 319(h)] funds
are used for implementation of demonstration projects for specific
watersheds or geographic areas, implementation plans must be
included in the work program/grant application. Implementat on
plans should, at a minimum, include:
1. a d r.ription of the institutional responsibilities and
roles of all participating agencies, and an identification
of the lead agency responsible for administering the project;
2. an explanation of the purpose or objectives of the project
such as evaluating the effectiveness of a particular best
management practice or achieving a particular water quality
goal in a watershed;
3. a watershed profile including an inventory of point end
nonpoint sources, as appropriate; and
4. the estimated cost of the project including the type, number
and cost of best management practices to be implemented in
the project area.
As a practical matter, States may not be able to provide a complete
implementation plan with their grant application. In such cases, the
grant application could be approved with a grant condition that such
an implementation plan be developed within a certain timeframe.
-------
28
State Not Using 205(j)(5) Funds for NPS Control - States do not have to
use the 205(j)(5) reserve for their NPS programs, although we encourage
them to do so. If a State chooses not to use a minimum of $100,000
of its reserve for NPS purposes, the difference between what is actually
used for NPS purposes and $100,000 will be realloted to other States
as construction grant funds, pursuant to 40 CFR 35.155. Reserves
beyond the first $100,000 may be used for “other purposes under Title II
of the Act” i.e., for construction of treatment works, for water quality
management planning activities, etc. In summary, it would be in the
interest of most States to use a minimum of $100,000 of their 205(j)(5)
reserve for developing and/or implementing their NPS Program.
B. Section 319(h)
Grants under section 319(h) are to be used to implement State NPS
Management Programs. A discussion of eligible implementation acti-
vities is provided under the previous section of the guidance
addressing 205(j)(5) grants.
Section 319i h)(2) provides that grant applications for section 319(h)
funds should include:
an identification and description of the best management
practices and measures which the State proposes to assist,
encourage, or require in such year with the Federal assistance
to be provided under the grant. (emphasis added)
Authorizations - Congress has authorized $70 million for FY 1988,
$100 million each for FY 1989 and FY 1990, and $130 million for FY
1991 for se tion 319(h); except that for each of such fiscal years
not to c xce d $7,500,000 may be made available to carry out section
319(i) No one State is to receive more than 15% of the funds appro-
priated under section 319(h) in any given year or more than $150,000
under section 319(i). These funds will not be available until Congress
appropriate3 them.
Allocation ‘f Funds - Funds appropriated for 319(h) would be
awarded to those States which have approved NPS Assessments and
Management Programs and have submitted specific grant applications.
-NOTE -
Following is our basic concept for allocating available 319(h) funds.
Futher guidance on the allocation will be developed once appropriated
funding levels are known.
Allocation Concept - EPA’s concept for establishing guidance for
allocating such funds is to balance basic State NPS program needs
with award of priority grants for the NPS activities listed below.
Completion and approval of a State Clean Water Strategy is a primary
consideration in awarding funds for priority NPS activities.
-------
29
Preference in the award of grant funds for priority NPS activities
will be given to programs which:
1. control particularly difficult or serious nonpoint source
pollution problems, including, but not limited to, problems
resulting from mining activities;
2. implement innovative methods or practices for controlling
nonpoint sources of pollution, including regulatory (e.g.,
enforcement) programs where the Administrator deems appropriate;
3. control interstate nonpoint source pollution problems;
4. carry out ground-water quality protection activities which the
Administrator determines are part of a comprehensive nonpoint
source pollution control program, including research, planning,
ground-water assessments, demonstration programs, enforcement,
technical assistance, education, and training to protect ground
water from nonpoint sources of pollution;
5. address nationally significant, high-risk NPS problems;
6. address surface/ground-water (cross-media) issues;
7. integrate Federal, State and local programs;
8. provide for monitoring/evaluation of program effectiveness;
9. comprehensively integrate CWA requirements; or
10. demcr 1 strate a long-term commitment to the building of
institutions necessary for effective NPS management and LLe
continuation of such institutions beyond the authorizatv
peri’ d.
Maintenance of Effort - A grantee who applies for a 319(h) grant
(and/or a 205(j)(5) grant to support implementation activities)
must meet the maintenance-of-effort (HOE) requirement of 3l9(h)(9)
by establishing and maintaining its aggregate annual level of State
NPS pollution control expenditures for improving water quality at the
average level of such expenditures in FY 1985 and 1986. States should
establish their FY 1985 and 1986 level and annual levels based on
expenditures by the primary State agency (or agencies) responsible
for the State’s NPS pollution control activities.
This means that:.
o A State must maintain an annual level of expenditures on NPS
activities equal to the average of its FY 1985 and 1986 NPS
expenditures i.e., its MOE base level.
o The State’s MOE base level should include expenditures only from
non-Federal sources; Federal funds should not be included in
calculating the HOE base level.
-------
30
o Calculation of expenditures is based on activities of the primary
State NPS agency (or agencies) responsible for the State’s NPS
pollution control activities, not on what might be termed related
activities of other State agencies with primary missions other
than NPS control. For example, if the State water quality agency
and agricultural agency both have specific NPS water quality control
programs, these should be counted in the MOE. State soil conservation
programs having water quality improvement or maintenance as a primary
objective will be included in a State’s MOE.
o The MOE base level or annual level cannot include the MOE or matching
expenditures for other Federal programs and in particular sections
106, 319, 205(j)(5), 314, and 117.
o Determination of whether the State expenditures meet the MOE level
for purposes of awarding a section 319(h) grant will be based on
the grantee expenditures projected in the grant application. (The
State will report whether it has met its MOE requirements in its
final Financial Status Report at the end of the budget year.)
Grant Application Requirements - Once the NPS Assessment and Management
Program have been approved, States may develop grant applications/work
programs for 319(h), pending appropriation of such funds. States
should prepare 319(h) grant applications based on the funding targets
negotiated with the appropriate Region and in accordance with the
requirements for section 205(j)(5) grant applications listed above.
Demonstration Projects - See discussion under section A above for
implementation plan requirements in the work program/grant Ltpplication
for demonstration projects.
Match - Section 319(h) grants are for the purpose of assist ng the
State to implement its approved NPS Management Program and require a
non-Federal match. Section 205(j)(5) funds used for implementing a
State’s approved NPS Management Program are awarded under section
319(h) and also require a non-Federal match. The Federal share of
such grants shall not exceed 60%.
The non-Federal share of 319(h) as well as 205(j)(5) grants must be
provided from non-Federal sources. The Act lists a number of activi-
ties which may be conducted in the implementation of the State’s NPS
Management Program:
including, as appropriate, nonregulatory or regulatory
programs for enforcement, technical assistance, financial
assistance, education, training, technology transfer, and
demonstration projects...
Generally, non-Federal funds used to support any of the above activities
may be used as non-Federal match under section 319. However, NPS funds
that are used to match or to satisfy MOE requirements for 106, 117,
or other Federal grant programs may not be used to match 319(h) or
205(j)(5) grants (i.e., double counting is not allowed). None of
the funds counted as non-Federal match may be used for administrative
-------
31
purposes under section 319(h)(12) if 10% of the grant amount is used
for those purposes, except that costs of implementing enforcement
and regulatory activities, education, training, technical assistance,
demonstration projects, and technology transfer programs shall not
be subject to this limitation.
State and local funds used for cost sharing and the portion of such
programs paid by the landowner/land manager may be used as match only
to the extent such cost sharing is used for demonstration projects as
provided in section 319(h)(7). This is because cost sharing except
in the case of demonstration projects is an ineligible activity under
section 319 and States may not use expenditures for ineligible activities
to match grant funds, This restriction also applies to section 205(j)(5)
funds used to implement NPS Management Programs. Thus, State and local
cost sharing funds are considered acceptable match for section 319 and
205(j)(5) only where such assistance is related to the costs of NPS
demonstration projects. We anticipate that many States will be conduct-
ing NPS demonstration projects where they would use their State cost
share funds as match.
Availability for Obligation - Section 319(h) funds and section 205(j)(5)
funds used for implementation granted to a State in any fiscal year
will remain available for obligation by the State for that fiscal year
(the year in which appropriated). If the State does not use its
grant funds in that year, the Regional Administrator may deobligate
the remaining funds and use them for grants to other States in the
next fiscal year or may renegotiate with the State the use and/or
schedule for use of the awarded funds. Section 205(j)(5) funds used
for program development may be obligated in the following year.
Satisfactory Progress - No subsequent 319(h) grant [ or 205(j)(5) funds
used for implementation) shall be awarded unless the State has demon-
strated satisfactory progress in meeting the schedule set out in
the approved NPS Management Program. Legitimate delays may result
from such factors as the time required to locate and hire the needed
mix of experienced and trained personnel for the NPS program. Given
the evolving nature of our understanding of NPS problems and appro-
priate management approaches, EPA Regions will need to exercise dis-
cretion in evaluating satisfactory progress and may address other
concerns than just whether the schedule for the NPS Management Program
has been met.
Administrative Costs - Administrative costs in the form of salaries,
overhead or indirect costs for services provided and charged against
activities and programs carried out under the grant shall not ex-
ceed 10% of the amount of the grant in each year. The costs of imple-
menting enforcement and regulatory activities, education, training,
technical assistance, demonstration projects, and technology transfer
programs shall not be subject to this limitation.
-------
32
C. Section 319(1)
Grants under section 319(1) are for the purposes of carrying out
ground-water quality protection activities which EPA determines will
advance the State toward implementation of a comprehensive NPS pollution
control program. Such activities may include, but need not be limited
to, research, planning, ground-water assessments, demonstration pro-
grams, enforcement, technical assistance, education and training to
protect the quality of ground water and to prevent contamination of
ground water from nonpoint sources of pollution. Administration of
section 319(1) grants will be carried out by EPA’s Office of Ground-
Water Protection under guidance to be provided.
D. Section 201(g)(1)
This section, as amended, allows NPS control efforts to be financed
through the Governor’s 20% discretionary set-aside of construction
grants funds. These are Title II funds that may be made available
for any purpose for which a grant may be made under sections 319(h)
and (1). NPS activities funded under this section must meet the
requirements for section 319, particularly 319(h) and (1).
(Note: EPA will develop additional information on the use of the
Governor’s 20% discretionary set-aside for NPS implementation.)
E. Section 803(c)(2)
The WQA adds a new Title VI providing for Federal capitalization
grants to States for State revolving funds to be used for loans,
primarily for municipal waste treatment. However, these loans may
also be made for the implementation of a NPS Management Progran
established under section 319 and development and implementation of
a conservation and management plan (for bays or estuaries) ux er
section 320, if certain requirements are met under section 603 and
Office of Municipal Pollution Control guidance.
State revolving fund loans may provide a source for funding of programs
or projects to control NPS pollution. Projects must be In accordance
with a State’s approved NPS Management Program. Favorable repayment
schedules and interest rates are to be set by the State to ensure
the accomplishment of the public purposes involved while protecting
the integrity of the State’s loan fund. Use of these funds is at
the discretion of the State once the program satisfies section 602
and Office of Municipal Pollution Control guidance.
( Note : EPA wiU develop additional information on the use of the
State Revolving Fund for NPS implementation.)
-------
33
F. Section 604(b)
Beginning in FY 1989, States must reserve each year 1% of their
Title V I allotments or $100,000, whichever is greater, to ca’ ry
out planning under 205(j) and 303(e). Since NPS planning activities
are eligiLle for funding under 205(j), the 604(b) reserve is an
additional source of funding for NPS activfty.
-------
APPENDIX A
Navigable Waters
Definition of Navigable Waters and Waters of the U. S. *
• . . The term “navigable waters” means the waters of the United
States, including the territorial sees.
Source: Federal Water Pollution Control Act as Amended by the Water
Quality Act of 1987
Waters of the U.S .
Waters of the United States or waters of the U.S. means:
(a) All waters which are currently used, were used in the past, or
may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce,
including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the
tide;
(b) All interstate waters, including interstate “wetlands;”
(c) All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams
(including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, “wetlands,”
sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural
ponds the use, degradation, or destruction of which would affect or
could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such
waters:
(1) Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers
for recreational or other purposes;
(2) From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in
interstate or foreign commerce; or
(3) Which are used or could be used for industrial purposes by
ijidustries in interstate commerce;
Cd) All impoundments of water5 otherwise defined as waters of the
United States under this definition;
(e) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a) through (d) of
this definition;
(f) The territorial sea; and
(g) “Wetlands” adjacent to waters (other than waters that are
themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (a) through (f) of
this definition..
Wetlands means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface
or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and
that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands
generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. .
Source: 40 CFR 122.2
-------
APPENDIX B
Major Nonpoint Source (NPS) Pollution Categories and Subcategories
1 NONPOINT SOURCES
10 Agriculture
11: Non-irrigated crop production
12: Irrigated crop production
13: Specialty crop production (e.g.,
truck farming and orchards)
14: Pasture land
15: Range land
16: Feedlots - all types
17: Aquaculture
18: Animal holding/management areas
20 Silviculture
21: Harvesting, reforestation,
residue management
22: Forest management
23: Road construction/maintenance
30 Construction
31: Highway/road/bridge
32. Land development
40 Urban Runoff
41: Storm sewers (source control)
42: Combined 3ewers (source control)
43: Surface runoff
70 Hydrologic/Habitat Modification
71: Channelization
72: Dredging
73: Dam construction
74. Flow regulation/modification
75: Bridge construction
76: Removal of riparian vegetation
77: Streambank modification/
destabilization
80 Other
81: Atmospheric deposition
82: Waste storage/storage tank
leaks
83. Highway maintenance and
runoff
84 Spills
85: In-place contaminants
86: Natural
90 Source unknown
50 Resource Exr-action/Exploration/Development
51: Surface mining
52: Subsurface mining
53. Placer mining
54: Dredge mining
55: Petroleum activities
56: Mill tailings
57: Mine tailings
- Disposal (Runoff/Leachate From Permitted Areas )
S ludg&
Was tewat er
Landfills
Industrial land treatment
On-site wastewater systems (septic tanks, etc.)
Hazardous waste
60 Land
61:
62:
63:
64:
65:
66:
‘I .
Source: (IS EPA. Guidelines for the Preparation of the 1988 State
Water Quality Assessment (305(b) Report) , April 1, 1987, p. 19.
-------
Appendix C
tIPS ProvisiOnS in the Water Quality Act of 19E7
Subject -
Section 319
Creates ne g ’ ugM( wT OF NONPOINT SOV*C 0? POU.UTION.
§ 319 c ’ a; L 4 Gv4uAz..—Title Ifl is a .nded by adding at the end the
PS Manage new section:
ment Programs
M C. 311. ? O 4 I ? S0L C! ANAGL V4T P G*AM3.
Contents “a; Si ’.&rs A e aev4r R ,oii ’i,—
of State “ Cor4Tvrrs.—Th. Governor of each Stat.. sheJi. after
Assessment I OtiC8 and opportunity for pubUc com ent, prepare and submit
to the Adrrnnistrator [ or approval, a report which—
Reports “(A, identifies those navigabl. waters w’tthi he Stat.
which. without additional action to control nonpoint
sources of pollution, cannot reasonably be expected to
at.a n or maintain applicable water quality standards or
the oa )3 and requirements of this Act:
identifIes those catagonea and subcategories of
rwnpotnt sources or. whir, appropriate, particular
nonpoint sources which add significant poUution to each
portion of the navigabl, waters identified under subpara.
graph (M in amounts which contribute to such portion not
muting such water quality n’dazds or such goaLs and
requirements:
“C I describes the process , including rnt .rgovernmentaj
coordination and public participation, for i enufying best
management practices and measures to control each cat-
egory and subcstgory of rionpoinc sources and. where
appropriate, particular nonpoint sources dentifled under
subparagraph (31 and to reduce, to the mu.imnum extent
practicable, the level of poLlution resulting from such cat-
egory. subcstagory. or source: and
“(D) ideaW and descn State and local progra a for
controLling pollution added from nonpoint sources to, and
improving the quaLity of. each such portion of the navigable
waters, including but not Ll atad to those programs which
are reosiving F.d.r ,1 astanos under su ctioca h and
(1).
lnf ormatioic “(2) Lsioaseaisoi. u us rwaa . ’now —to developing tn.
reort required by this section. the Stat. (A) may rely upon
used tO imormauon developed pursuant to ctiona 208. 303 (e), 304f ),
prepare 305(b) E d 314, ..n other informa on as appropriate, and (B)
State may utilIze appropriate ete enta of the waste tiuatmsnt
Assessment ru -s -sgement pians developed puiesant to sections 208(b) and
Report 303, to th. extent such .l.m.nte are roc ssant wnh and fulilll
the reqwremanta of this section.
-------
—2-
Subject
Contents -
of State (bi STATI MANAGfl(K (T P OG*AMS.—
“(1) [ GVIUAL—The Governor of each Scat.. for that State
Management or in combination wnh adjacent Stat., shall, after notice and
Programs opportunity for public comment. prepare and submit to the
Administrator for approval a ‘ -‘ sgament program wbAch such
Stat. proposes to implement in tb. fIrst tour ffacal years begin.
tung after the data of submiion of such *nIgem.nt program
for controlling pollution added (rain nonpoint wur to the
navigable waters within the Stat. and improving the quality of
such
“(2) S ecwic cowrv ri.— ach ma gament program pro.
posed for implamentation under thu mthsec on shall include
each of the foUowin
“(A) An identification of tb. best ment practicá
and measures which will be undertaken to reduce pollutant
lo.dinp resulting froin each cacagory. sia tagory, or
ps.rticv.Lsr non point source dssi ated under poragraph
1 I B). taking into account the impact of the practice on
ground water qualIty.
“(B) An identaflcauon of programs (iocl 4 ng. as aporo.
print.. noar uLawry or r.(u.lacory pr ams (or enforce.
mint, t.cKm 1 cia assistance , education,
training. tachnoto transfer, and demsnstration projects)
to achieve’ implementation of th. best ‘ qsment pnc.
ticea by the categories. subcategories and particular
nonpoint sources designated und.r mabpsrqreph (A).
“(C) A schedule conritning annual mileston, for (1) utili .
ation of the program implementation methods identif sd
in subparagraph (B). and (ii) implementation of th, best
nagement prscticea identified in subparagraph (A) by
Ii• cat.gon subcategories. or oarnciaiar non point sources
designated under paziçapb 1X ). Such schedule shall pro.
vid, for uti1i tion of th. best ‘ . l.fsment prscn at the
earliest practicabl, data.
“(D) A certification of the attorney 4eneral of the State or
States or the chief attorney of mv tat water pollution
control agency which has indepeni ent legal counsel) that
the laws of the Stats or Statas, as the s may be. provide
adequate authority to imptiment such management pro.
gram or, if there is not such adequate authority. a l ist of
such additional authorities as will be nr ary to
implement such management program. A schedule and
commitment by the State or States to k such additional
authonties as .zp.ditiously U practIcable.
“iE Sources of Federal and other amistanee and fundiM
(other than aietance provided under subsections th) and
till which wsU be available in each of such fIscal yeaii for
supporting implementation of such practices and mes.iues
and th, purposes for which such aesisiance will be used in
each of such riscal years.
-------
—3—
Contents
of State
Man a gene nt
P ’ o grams
(continued)
Other require-
ments for State
Assessment/Man-
agement Programs
“(F) An identiflcation of Federal I nancia.l aiatanc, pro.
grams and Federal development projects for which the
Stat. will review individual aseistanc. appllatic.a or
development projects for their effect on water quality
pursuant to the procedures set forth in Executive Order
12372 es in effect on September 17, 1983, to determine
whether such wLstance applications or development
projects would be eonsiatant with the program prepared
under thia subsection; for the purposes of this subpe.ra
graph, identification shall not be limited to the iatance
programs or development projects subject to Executive
Order 12.’72 but may include any pro rama listed in th.
most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Awstancs which
may have an effect on th. purposes and objectives of th.
State’s nonpoint source pollution management program.
Use of
1oc 1 and
private
experts
Emphasis on
watershed —
by-wat e ’ s’ed
ba s is
Cooperat ion
Requirement
Time frame for
State submitta’
of Reportl
Ma na geiient
Program
“3 UflUZAT1OI 0? I CAI. AND P*1VA1 ’ wwrs.—In develop.
irtg anU imptrmenting a management program under this
suluction, a State shall, to the maximum extent practicable.
involve local public and private agencies and org arnzationa
which has. expertis. in control of rionpoint sources 01 o1lution
‘(4) DCVtWPMLNy o warusuro sails—A State shill, to the
maximum extent practicable. develop and implemeri’ a manage.
ment program under this subsection on a watarshed.by.watar.
shed basis within such State
‘ci ADMINiITaAnVI P OViI ION 5,—
‘I 1) Coo iaan s. *LQV IILMiNT —Any report required by
subsection (a) and any management program and report re
quired bs subsection (b) shall be developed in osoperation with
local, substat. re nonal , and interstate entitles which are ac
tively planning for the implementation of nonpoint source
pollution controls and have either been certified by the
Administrator in accordance with section 208. have worked
jointly with the Stat. on water quality management planning
under section 2O j ). or hav, been designated by the State
legislativ, body or Governor as water quality managemest
planning agencies for their geographic areas.
“(2) Tisis woo oa sus mow or wos’si a.n a ac
MVIT paoGaaiis.—Eech report and .g ,mest p ’.m Shal l
be submitt.d to the AdmAn ntcr during the 1$-moath psflod
bsgir’ung on the data of the ena nt o(this acticm
-------
-4-
Subject
Time frame
for EPA
approval of
State Reports!
Management
P rag rams
Procedure for
EPA disapproval
an criteria
for lisapproval
What If
State falls
to submit
an Assessment
Report?
“(d) An’iov*i. Os Dij*.pnov j or RE oat5 im
PlocLt .—
‘(1) DZAou7il .—Subj.ct to paragraph (2), am lit., th 180
day, altar the dat. of submiion to the Adminigtr ,t , of any
report or management pr ra,n under this section (othir thin
Su , ,.. ,. iofls (h), i), and (k)), the Adminjgi*toi skill either
approve or disapprov, such report or management prog-r , as
the Ca .. may be. The Mjyunigrstor may approve a portion of a
management program under this section. II ’ the Mjiwii. .
trttou’ doss not • report , maaa snwnt prog .oi
portion of a management program in
report, f!w14(ernent program, or portion shall be deemed ap
proved for pw-pr this ctioo.
“(2) P*oct uig P01 DisArnovAz.—Ir, a1tir notIce and pp-
turuty for public comment and congultgioe with apprvpnat.
Federal and State agencie, and othir iatsrt.d perione, the
Mministrator dctarmui that—
‘(A) th. proposed management prugram or any po,dec
thereof doss not moot the requirements of subssctioa (bX2)
of this section or is not likely to satisfy, in whole or in part,
thi o.1s and requirements of this Act
“(s) sd.quata authority doia not ezist, or adequate r,
sources are not available, to implement such program or
portzon
“(C) the schedule (os implementing such prugs.a or
portion is not sufficiently ezpsditious or
“(D) the practices and musures proposed in such pro.
gram or portion are riot adequate to reduc, the level of
pollution in navigable waters in the State resulting from
nonpoint sources and to improve the quality of navigable
waters in the Stat.:
the Administrator shall within 6 months of the receipt of the
proposed program notify the Stat, of any tensions or modifica-
tIons necessary to obtain approval. The State shall thereupon
have an additional 3 months to submit its revised management
program and the Administrator shall approve or disapprove
suc.. revised program within three months of receipt.
(3) FAILuig or IFATI i a sua rr war t— If a O ..,r iior V a
State doss not submit the report required by suhescUon (a)
within the period specified by subesct(on (U2). the Mminis .
triter shall, within 30 months after the date of the enact 1sstt of
this section, prepare a report for such Stat. which makes the
identifications required by paragraphs (1JA) and (113) of
subsection aL Upon completion of th. requirement of the
preceding sentence and after notice and opportunity for corn.
mint, the Administrator shall report to Congress on his ctions
pursuant to this section
-------
.5.
Subject
What “(e’ LOCAl. MANACtMZNI PROc*AMS; T$CMNICAI. AatrANCI.—lf a
State f a I is Stat. fails to submit I itanagement proçram under subsection (b) or
to suriiilt a the Administrator does not approve sucn a management program. a
Managemer t local public agency or organization WhICh ‘U expertise in. arid
suthorltI to, control water pollution resulting from nonpoint
Program? irces in any ares of such Stat. which the Administrator deter.
mines is of sufficient geographic size may, with approval of such
Stat., request the Administrator to provide, and the Administrator
shall provide, technical aislance to such agency or organization in
developing for such ares a management pingram which is dcribsd
In subsection (b) pad can be approved pursuant to mabsscdon (d).
After development of such “ “ngement program, such ags cy or
tion shall submit such minagem t aa to the
i tratcr for approvaL If the Mii i trator apoi such
IIknagement pr ram. such agency or aM on shiB be .Ugthl.
to receive ftnancial siataacs under subsection (h) for ip t .m. ts-
tion 0 f such management p m as if such ___
were a Stats for which a report submitted
management pr razn submitted under subsection (b) were ap, 4
under this section. Such financial assistance shall be subject to the
sam. terms and conditions as aiatanos provided to a Stats under
subsection Ilil.
EPA I e c ’ ri 1 ca 1 “(0 ? iiretcA . AI$II?AMCZ ros S?Aifl.—Upo request of a Stat.,
A itance iPte Administrator may provide technical iztanoe to such Stat. in
developing n management program approved under subsection (b)
for thos. portions at Ut. navigable watire requested by such State.
I rite rs tate “‘gi l rrur*r Msj,*cg ivi, Co,.,rxvics.—
Ma ri a gene ri t ‘(1) CoI ’ivrN INC 0? CONFtUI4cL P4OiITICA?Iow; Puuosz.—It
Confere ’ e any portion of the navigable waters in any State which is
implementing a managern ’nt pr ram approved under this
section ii not meeting applicable wa Ist quality standards or the
goals and requirements of this Act as a result, in whole or in
of pollution from nonpoint sources in another State, such
tate may petition the Administrator to convene, and the
Administrator shall convene, a management conf.r,nco of all
States which contribiat significant pollution resulting from
nonpoint sources to such portion. If, on the bears of information
available, the Administrator determines that a Stat. is not
meeting applicable water quality standards or the gosh and
requirements of this Act as a result, in whole or in part, of
significant pollution from nonpoint sources in another Stat.,
the Administrator shall notify such States. The Administrator
may convene a management conference under this psragmph
not later than iSO days after giving such notification, whether
or not the State which is not meeting such standards requests
such conference. The purpose of such conference shall e to
develop at agreement among such State.. to reduce Uts level of
pollution in such portion multing from nonpornt sources end to
improve the water quality of such portion Nothing in such
agr.emcnt shall supersede or abrogat. rights to quantiti, of
water which have been established by .nterstate water com•
pacts. Supreme Court decrees. or Stat. water laws. This subsec
lion shall not apply to any pollution which is subject to the
Colcirado River basin Salinity Control Act. The requirement
that the Administrator con ene a management conference shall
not be subject to the provisiuris of section 505 of this Act
-------
.6—
Subject
Interstate
Manager ent
Conf erence
(cont 1 riued
Regu1re nents
for grants
under 319 (h )
Assessment /
Ma na geme ‘it
Program must be
approved
Use of
funds
205 (ji(S)
Federal share
not to exceel
6
NO more than 15%
of the authorization
for this subsection
may go to one State
Pr I on ty
considerations -for
§ 319 (h) grants
“i2j Sr i MANACIMZ’ .T P OC AM ZqIJIRD zny.—To the
extent that the States reach agreement through such con•
Ierenc,, the miana em,nt programs of the Stat., which ire
parties to such agreement.s and which contribute significant
pollution to the navigable waters or portions thereof not meet.
trig applicable water quality standards or goals and requir, .
merits of this Act will be revised to refi.ct such agreernerit. Such
management programs shall be consistent with Fsders.1 and
Stet ..w.
“(hi Gwn’ Pioca. .—
1) Ga...n s rca or u*c r
caA s.—Upon app! iceuon of a State for which a repeis submit .
tad under su on (a) and a management p i-.m .ubmiu.4
under iubssctio (b) is appr .,4 under tb on, the
Administrator shall k . giants subject to such terma and
conditzo as the Administrator censidere appropriate, Msv
this subesetion to such Stat, for the puzpees of iatI the
State in implementing such management program. FunLs r
serv.d punuant to section 203 (jX5 of this Act may be used to
develop and implement such managsm.ntpogpe ,
“(2) ario,is—Aa applicetion for a t ander this
sube etion in any fIscal year shall be in suJ’ 7o’ rm and shall
contain such other information as the Administrator may r
qwre, including an tillcation and deecripuoc of the beet
managsment practice, and miasuree which the Stat. p .- . .p .s
to assist, encourage, or requir, in such year wutri the ?sd.rai
assistancs to be provided under th. grant.
“(3) Finu.u. sxiu.—Th. Federal share of th. cost of each
management program implem.nt.d with Federal assistance
under this su .. on in any fiscal yes, shall not . iceed 80
percent of the cost Incurred by the State in impl.m.nWsg such
management program and shall be made on condition that the
non.F.deral . .re is provided from non .Fedsral sou .
‘(4) Laasrurnow ois owe aisouirre.—Noewithasandiag any
other provision of this subsection, not more than 15 p.r .at of
the amount appropriated to corn out this sabmction may be
used to make grant, to any one State, including any pant, to
any local public agency or organiation with authority to eon.
Ire! pollution from nonpoint sour In any ares of such Stat..
“(a) Paioarrv rca uvzcrivt si,c,wossis.—For each fiscal
year beginning after September 30, 1987, the Administrator
may give pruonty in making grants under this subsectIon, and
shall give consideration in determining the Federal shar. of any
such grant, to State, which have implemented or are proponing
to implement management programs which will—
“(A) control psrticutarly difficult or wtlm nonpeint
source pollution problem& including, but not limited to,
problems reaulting from mining sctivitiee
“(B) implement innovative methods or practic for
controlling nenpoint sourcee of pollution, including
r,giulatory programs where the Administrator deems
sppropnat.;
-------
—7—
Priority
considerations frir
319 (h) grants
Avai’ability for
obligation
Financial assistance
to individuals only
for costs related to
emonstrat1on pro ctS
Satisfactory progress
Maintenance of
effort
“(C) control interstate nonporni source pollution prob .
urns. or
“cDi carry out ground watir quality protection activities
which the Administrator determines are part of a corn.
pr h.nsive nonpoint source pollution control program.
including research. planning, ground wit., a ssm.nts.
demonstration programs, enforcement, technical assistance,
education. and training to protect ground witer quality
from nonpornt sources of poUution.
“(6) Av iLii1iLZTY P01 OnZJGATION. ’—’The funds granted to
each Stat. pursuant to this subsection in a fiscal y.ar sheA!
remain available for obligation by such State for the fIscal year
for which appropriated. The amount of any such funds riot
obligated by the end of such flecal year shall be available to the
Administrator for granting to other Stat. under this subsection
in the nut fl l year.
‘T7) L 1MrT4?toN osi t e pwrea.—ltat ma ises ande frees
rant. mad. puziuant to this sscdoo 1* Saaw.ial assistance to
persons only to the estant that m a ch atance I r.1*tad to the
ceata of d.monatndoo Iw $ect. . ___
4($) Sai ac,osy p.onp.—No pant may be mad. m ’
this ma Ion In any I h o s I yes , tee Stat. which In the
pr ciding fiscal year received a raat unde, this subuscdon
ual the Administrator du4 mn.s that m ach State made
satisfactory n4N in such ding flscal year in meeting
the scheduls spscifl.d by macli $tata under subsection (bx2 )
“(9) MAIrrTv4ANC1 Or t ,voiT.—No grant may be made to a
Stat. under this subsectIon in any fiscal year unle such Stat.
enters into such agreements with the Administrator as the
Administrator may require to ensure that such Stat. will maan•
tam its aggregate expenditures from all other sources for pro.
grams (or controlling poltut on added to the navigable waters in
such State from rionpoint sources and improving the quality of
such waters at or above the average livel of such eapenditures
in ti two ri.caI years preceding the data of’ enactment of this
subsection
“ilO) RiQUCIT P01 l!4PO IMA?ION,—The Administrator may
request such information, data, and reporta as he considers
risc.uary to make the determination of’ continuing elipbdtty
for grants under this section.
“(11) R&PO1T1NC AND O?NU UQU 1UMV4 ’?I —Each Stat. shall
report to the Administrator on an annual basis concerning (A)
iti progress in meeting the schedule of milestones submitted
; arsuant to subsection ba2 C) of this section. and (B) to the
extant that appropriate information is avamlabl.. reductions in
nonpomnt source pollutant losding and improvements in water
çuality for thoes navigable waters or watersh within the
State which were identified pursuant to subsection (aXIXA) of
this section multing from implementation of th. management
program. ___ ___
“i12 LlwrraftoN ON ADMINIT IA?1VI COlTs—For purposes of
this subsection. administrative cosu in the form of salaries.
overhead, or indirect costs for rvicu provided and charged
against activities and programs carried out with a grant under
this subsection shall not exceed in any fiscal year 10 percent of
the amount of the grant iii such year, except that costs of
implementing enforcement and regulatory activities, education.
training, technical suistance. demonstration proj.cta, and tech-
noloçy transfer programs shall not be subtect to this limitation
Subject
Re uirementS for grants under
19 (h) (continued )
Request for
information
Annual State
reports
required
Limitation Qfl
administrative
costs (shaH
not exceed 1 )
-------
-8-
Subject
Requirements for grants under § 319 (ij
for protecting groundwater quality
Eligible applicants
and activities
Federal share
not to exceed S
Authorizations for
§ 319 (h) anø (i)
EPA required to
compile information
regarding edera1
programs/projects -
(II G is roe PIOTtCIINC L,eouHDwAna Wu*ury —
“11 EUCiSLC APPUCAN1I A D ACriVirt 5 —Upon application
of a State for which a report submitted under subsection a) and
a plan submitted under subsection bi is approved under thu
section. the Administrator shall .ake pints under this subsec .
tuon to such Stat. for the purpose of assisting such Stat. in
carrying out groundwater quality protection ctavni which
the Administrator determines will advance th. Stati toward
impl.mentatuon Ota comprehensive nonpoint source pollution
control program. Such activities shall include, but not be
Umitid to. research, planning. groundwater —“ .nta, dim.
onstration programs, enforcement, technical iita.nce,
education and tr ifiüig to protect the quality ci groundwater
sod to prevent osnl 1 amination of pm&ndwater from nompotat
50ti?CN O(pOUI&tiOi.
‘(2) A? UCA?IONI.—An application to, a grant under this
subsection shall be In such form and shall contain mash Inform..
tion as the Administrator may reqwrt
13) FIDUAI. SNAiL *AXIMUW aaowrr.—Th. Federal shai’s
or the cost of assisting a Stat. in carrying out $ioundwatar
protection activitieS in any fiscal year under this subsection
shall be 50 percent of ihecoste incurred by the Stat. in carrying
out such activiti escept that the maii um amount O(FSdIII1
assistance which any State may receive under this subsection in
any fiscal year shall not exceed $150000.
14) Ripoay.—Th. Administrat.r shall Include in .e h report
transmitted under subsection (m) a report on the ac ivni and
programs implemented under this subsection during the prsc.d-
ing fiscal year.
“(jI AumsoaizAlTos or APnoP* IMIOM.—There is euthoriad to be
aporopriatad to carry out subsections (hi and (I) not to e’cted
$10000000 for fiscal yeas 1988, $100000000 per fiscal year for each
of fiscal years 1989 and 1990. and 1130.000.000 for fiscal year 1991;
except that for each of such fiscal years not to eicssd $1,S00.000 may
be madi available to carry out subsection (I). Sums appropriated
pursuant to this sub ction shall remain available until expended.
1k) Cowmmwcv or Oiisu PICCIAMS aim Pao iwr. Wms
MANACmivrr PsocaAMs.—The Administrator skill transmit to the
Office of Management and Budget and th. spprvpnat. Federal
dips rtments and agencies a list of those sasistanchsolnlmsa.d
development proj.cts identiflad by each Stat.
(b 2*P) for which individual assistance applications and projects
will be reviewed pursuant to the pvu adurss set forth In Executive
Order 12372 as in effect on September 17. 1983. BegInning not later
than sixty days after receiving notification by the M ”wtrator.
each Federal department and agency shall modify existing regula.
tioris to allow States to review individual development projects and
assistance applications under the identified Federal assistance p
grams and shall accommodate. according to the requirements and
definitions of £xecuti’e Order 12372. as in effect on September 17,
1983. th. concerns of the State re 1 arding the consistency of such
applications or projects with the tate ruonpoint source pollution
management program
-------
-9-
Subject — —
EPA required
to compile
infor,t t,O n
on BMPs
EPA annual
reports
required
EPA staffing
eve1S
“(I) COU..LCT1OI4 O 174r0*MATTON —The Administrator shall coliact
and make satiable, through publications and other appropriate
means. infon tation pertaining to management practices end im.
plemn.ntanon methods, including, but not limited to. (1) information
concerning the costs and restive efficiencies of best management
practices tot reducing nonpoint source poflution; and (2) available
data concerning th. relationship between water quality and im.
plem.ntation of various management practices to control rionpoint
sources of pollution.
(rni Rrpoar, or ADMINIr*AyOL —
‘1 1 ANNUAL ag oars —Not later than January 1. 1988. and
each January 1 thereafter. th. Admu iatrator shall tranSmit to
the Committee on Public Worki and Transportation of Sb.
House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment
and Public Work.s of the Senate, a report for the preceding fiscal
year on the activities and progra.ma implemented under thu
section and Sb. prugrem made in reducing pollution ii Sb.
navigable waters remaltlng fros aoapoint eourom and lmpoov.
ing the quality of such watera.
“(2) ThIQ, amoa,.—Not later than January 1, 1150 , the
*Amjni t t , shall trs mIlit to Conp a final re tt os the
activities carried out under thi section. Such EIpuiL , at $
shall—
(A) ds rfb. the management pr ram. being Lespis.
mentid by the Staten b ty sad amount of affscted
rievigsbk waters, categones and mabmtagori. of nonpoint
sources, and types of bust ‘gem.nt practime being
mplentad
“(B) describe the uporlencas of the Stats. in adhering to
schedules and implementing beet &1Lagomerlt practices;
“C) describe the amount and purpose of grants awarded
pursuant to subsections (h) end (I) of this
ID) identify, to Sb. extent that intovt ?1e available.
the progrom made in reducing oIlutaat loads sad imprue.
ing water ouality in the naviga 1. waters
“(E) indicat, whet further actions need to be taken to
attain and maintain in those navigable waters (I) applicable
water quality standaxà and (ii) the goal. and requIrements
f this Act. ____
“(F) include umm.ndatIoos of the
concerning fUture pr rame (including enf sment pro
grams) for controlling pollution from nonpoint s irom and
1G) identify the activities sad pTwsma of departments,
agencies, and instram.ntallties of the United States whIch
are inconsistent with Sb. management programe submitted
by the Statis and recommend modi&atlons so that such
activities and programs are ossistent with and omist Sb.
Stat.. in implementation of such management programs.
‘(n) $g tj p MMl rLs?tv* Puiomtm.’Nst 1 than 5
cent of th. funds appropriated pursuant to esbeecton tj) for any
year shall be available to the Administrator tO maintain
personnel levels at the Environmental Protection Alsnc7 at levels
which are adequate to carry out this section in such yes ’..
EPA final
report
required
-------
-10-
Subject
Policy for
control of
NPS pollution
(b) Pouc’r ron CoilTioL or NoNPoini Souncu or Poi&&mop,.—
Section lOlia) is amended by striking out and” at th. and of
paragraph (i), by trikin out the period at he end of paragraph (6)
arid ins.rtang in lieu thereof ; and”, and by addArig at th. end
thcreof the t ollowinr
‘ 7 it is the national policy that program, for the control of
nonpoint sources of pollution be developed and i.mplsment.id in
an expediuoui manner so u to enable tlui goals of this Act to be
met throuFh th, control of both point and nonpoun aour of
pollution.’
Construction grant set-asides
Governor’s discretionary
set-aside • § 201(g)(1)
§ 205(j)(S)
Conforming
amendment S
State Rsvolvjflgjunds
Ic) F ucaii.rr, or No,ip y Souncn.- .Th. last sentence of sec.
tiori 201(g*1) is amended by—
(1) stnkinq out “sentence,” the flnt place it appian and
inMrting in lieu thertof’esnt.n ”;
(2) inserting “(Al” after “ tobsr 1, 1994, for”; and
(31 inserting before ucspt that’ the following: “and (B) any
purpse. for which a pant may be under sectiose $19 )
and (1) of this Act (including any Innovativ, and aIt.raa ,,
approsch for the co5tzi& of a poins of
Cd) RunvAlsois or F nrne.— cdoa 205W amended by ‘ 4ing
at the nd the following new pi, aph ______
15) Nospoorr envace —..*eio .—ln aM1U s the
rsesn’ed un .r paracaph (1), the M’ rator hm1l.
each ñsosi year for aacn tat. 1 of the me alIo .d
and available for obligation to ss2 tundsr this ssctton for
each fIIcal rear b tnning on or saber Osiok,sy 1, 1991, or
$100,000, whichever ear. seofcarrying t
sectIon 319 of this Act
year for which such Stat. does not rt’qu.sz the u o(sech sums.
to the ezt.nt such sums nosed 1100.000, may be nsd by such
State for other purp n under this title.”.
Ce) Co .roasspso AMgis IT.—$sction $04(kXl) amended by
lnw’tlng ‘and nonpoint ource pollution
approved under action 319 of this Act” a of tLs Act”.
State evo1vlng
Funds may be
used to lmp emsnt
NPS programs
established under
§ 319
“(c Pioj .ii Eucau on Awmcz.—rh_, amounto of funds
available to each Stat. wag., poilution con e1 revolving fund shall
be used only for providing flnanciaj umatana (1) to any unicipal .
ity, intarmun pal, interstate, or Stat. agency tar con uc on of
pubLic owned creag g - o ,b a defined in ssc c 212 of this
Act), ( ) for the tmplsm.rna of a
Liahad under section 319 of this Act,
lWpi .mengag ion of a eonass aeion and isi ,tnsng plan under
section 320 of this Act. The fund shaLl be ____
and credited with repayments, and th, fund balance shall be avail.
able in perpetuity for providing such ftnanciai aenstance.
-------
—11—
S u bj ect
Intended Use
Plans requlfed
for State
Revol virig
F u rids
Consistency
requirement for
State Revolving
Funds
ether Miscellaneous NPS
“(ci Ii ’rv Usn PLU.—Aftir providing (or public comment
and review, iach Stat. shall annually prepur , a plan idut fylng the
intended UMS of the amou te available to poUu on control
revoirtAg fund. Such intended use plan shall include, but not be
lLm t.d to-
“U) a Urn of th projects (or ccns*ricticn of publicly ownid
treatment worha on the State’s pflonty list developed p anuant
to section 216 of this Act and $ lies of sc itiis Li ble for
a sta.nca under .scuona 319 and 320 of thJ Acts
“(2) adcnptzon of the abort. and loni-term geaJa and objec.
tivus of i water poUu on control r,velv n1 l’und
“(3) information on the utr iti.s to be supported, including a
dsscrip on of preject asqonss, discharge reqwrement. under
titise III and IV of this Act, terma of tin.ancla.L aistanc., and
communities ssrved.
(4) uran and spsc flc proposals for meeting the require-
paragraphs 3), 4 , ) , pad (6) of section 8O2 b) of t g
“(5) the criteria and method established for the distribution of
funds.
•‘(f ) Cow. ey Wi? t Pt..emmso Ra uaz ers.-A Stat. may
provide ftnnncial usistana from water pol1u on conDol ri Li
ing fund only with respect to a project which is coMtreat tth
plans. it any, developed under section. 206W, 201, 3OZe), 319, and
320 o(th i sAct.
Provisions
Rural Clean
water Pro-
gram (RWCP)
Agricultural
stornwater
discharges
no longer
defined as
point sources
Indian Tribes
•) Rui.u. Ci.wc WaTu.—Sscc io@ 208(jX9) is amended by ‘tking
out “and” .ft. ‘1981.’ and by tnsesvq after 1962.” the foilowini
“and such sums as may be nocusary or scal year, 1983 through
t990, ”
5CC 353. G*ICtLTt.kAL S1OR WA?U DISCIIAIGU
Section 3O I4 relating to the deithitlen of point source) is
r “does not inch de” the foUowin agn-
amended by in..riuig site
cultural stormwater discharges arid
3CC SIt l!4DIA’i TRIRIS
“(di COQPUAI ’I’. g Aoau..,ssiirs.—ln order to ensure the consistent
ünpI.m,ntaiion of the requirement. of this Act, an Indian tribe and
the State or Stat.. an which the lande of such tribe are located may
enter into $ Cooperative agreement, subject to the review and ap
proval of the Administrator, to jointly plan and administer the
requirements of thi s Act.
-------
-12.
Subject
Indian Tribes ‘ .i T u iiv , *s Smru—fli, Admirustrator is authori .d to
treat an Indian tribe u a Stat. for purposes of title II and ssct ena
104. 106. 303. 303. 30k. 309, 314. 319. 402. 102. and 404 of this Act to
the defT, . necessary to carry out the objeetivss of this section, but
only it—
“(1) the Indian tribe has a io’ernistg body carrying out
substantial governmental duties and powers;
“(2) the functions to be eaercissd by the Indian tribe pertain
,ma agml and protection of water resour vluch are
tribe, held by the United Stats, in tr ut for
laditne , held by a member of an Indian tribe If such peu .ny
Interest lo subject to a tr m r lctlon on stMn . or ot .
wiac within the borders of an 1 ’ dIin sttsn and
b biA4 tribe is rt’vcriably upsctsd I . be .r”. . in
the Mmin razoes judgment, of canynç out the w me to
ho .zorcisd In a * qr earudetrot wrw the tarmo mad
of this A4 and of all ap ”..i4 . rI oas ___
Such treatment ass Stat. may mdudi the ____
roserrd under mahes’ction (C) to ______ _______
triba and the determination of wtisr
act determined by the Administrator in cooperation with the DIr
The Admuuitr*to, in cooperntMn
t t heS liealt su to
grants under title Uo( this A I In an amount to
100 proms of the coot of a pr sct Not later than 1$ tbe alt.,
the date of the .nsctmiat of this section, the AdmIn ’nter afl .
consultation with Indian tribes. promulgat. flail r ulmtions which
specify how Indian tribes shall be treated as States per of
th Act. The Admlnlgntar shall. in
consult affected States sharing common water
mechanism (or the resolution of any ua,eomaable Ioomqrisnom
that may arise as a result of diftering water quality utaadai’ that
may be set by States sad Indian tribes located on bodi . of
water. Such mechanism shall provide for ezplidt consideration of
relevant (actor, including. but not limited to, the .ftecto of differing
water quality permit requirements on upotsesm and downstream
dischargen, economic mp.cts and pisasat and h ormcaJ and
quality of the waters to such standaado Such mechanism
should provide (or the avordanco of ouch ws nabl. ounouqusnas
La a manner consistent with the objective dthis Act.
“If) Ga.urra rca Nosirca., Sovaca Pnocaaaa—The M.th ’l .
triter shall make rants toant tribe iad,v section 315 of this
Act though such tribe was a Stat.. Not more than oneithird of
one pe csnt of the amount appropriated for any ?hcsl year under
section 319 may be used to make grants under this eu ctiom. In
eddition to th. requirements of suction 319, an t ”dian tribe shall be
required to meet the requirements of porugTaphs (1), (2) , and 3) of
subsection Id) of this section in order to mce is such a grant.
------- |