General guidelines, Section 319(h) FY96 Grant, Nonpoint Source Implementation Grant

l lfrl N200~E"5

. NtJ hI s

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

l,~9~

l

l

l

GENERAL GUIDELINES
SECTION 319{h) FY96 GRANT NONPOINT SOURCE IMPLEMENTATION GRANT
REVISED DECEMBER, 1998

SECTION 319(h) FY96 GRANT NONPOINT SOURCE IMPLEMENTATION GRANT
GRANT OPPORTUNITY UPDATE
This is to advise you that Section 319(h) FY96 Grant funds for the prevention, control and/or abatement of nonpoint sources of pollution will be made available to public agencies in Georgia (e.g., cities, counties, local authorities operating local government delivery programs, regional development centers, local school systems, State colleges and universities, and State agencies).
Under Section 319(h) of the Clean Water Act, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) awards a Nonpoint Source Implementation Grant to the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GAEPD) to fund eligible projects which support the implementation of the Georgia Nonpoint Source Management Program. The Section 319(h) Grant funds are limited. Therefore, the GAEPD uses a competitive process to ensure that the most appropriate projects are selected for funding.
The State has approximately $1 million in Section 319(h) FY96 Grant funds to implement watershed and statewide projects. Maximum Federal reimbursement for a Nonpoint Source Implementation Grant project is 60 percent of the total project cost. Therefore, each project must provide non-Federal matching funds or in-kind services for a minimum 40 percent of the total project cost. Thus, for a total project cost of $250,000, the maximum Federal reimbursement would total $150,000 and the non-Federal matching funds or in-kind services would total $100,000.
Section 319(h) Grant project proposals should specifically identify the nonpoint sources of pollution being addressed and the activities proposed to prevent, control and/or abate these nonpoint sources of pollution. Priority will be given to project proposals which encompass or support a watershed management approach and result in measurable improvements in water quality.
Project proposals must support milestones and/or implementation activities described in the draft Georgia Nonpoint Source Management Program (Full Revision -April, 1998). In addition, priority will be given to projects located within and benefiting watersheds identified on the Section 305(b) and Section 303(d) lists of waters which are partially or not supporting beneficial uses due to nonpoint sources of pollution. Copies are available upon request.
Priority will be given to project proposals which implement Watershed Restoration Action Strategies in areas identified by the State's Unified Watershed Assessment as being "in need of restoration." These areas, referred to as "Category I- Watersheds in Need of Restoration," are those watersheds that "do not now meet, or face imminent threats of not meeting, clean water and other natural resource goals."
The Unified Watershed Assessment for Georgia was developed by the GAEPD, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and the Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission (GSWCC), working with other interested Federal, State, local and private stakeholders. In accordance with the Unified Watershed Assessment Framework, the State finalized the Watershed Restoration Priorities in October, 1998.

The USGS 8-digit hydrological cataloging unit served as the common scale for reporting the results of the Unified Watershed Assessment. Additional information about watersheds (e.g., rivers and streams in the watershed, land characteristics, river corridor and wetlands restoration efforts, index of watershed indicators, etc.) may be accessed through the USEPA webpage at:
http:lwww .epa.govlsurf21hucsl
Types of activities which are eligible include: regulatory or non-regulatory programs for enforcement, technical assistance, financial assistance, education, training, technology transfer, watershed projects, demonstration projects, monitoring to assess the success of specific nonpoint source implementation projects, urban stormwater control activities that are not specifically required by a draft or final NPDES permit, and certain ground water activities. Lake protection and restoration activities are eligible provided that they are not used for "inlake" work such as aquatic macrophyte harvesting or dredging unless the nonpoint sources of pollution will be remediated.
SECTION 319(h) FY96 GRANT MONIES CAN NOT BE USED TO FUND PROJECT PROPOSALS RESULTING IN THE UPDATE AND REFINEMENT OF NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS AND ASSESSMENTS.
Nonpoint source pollution is the greatest source of water quality problems in Georgia today. The Section 319(h) Nonpoint Source Implementation Grant Program presents us all with exciting opportunities to focus our efforts and enhance our resources to solve these remaining water quality problems as well as to sustain good water quality. The application of Section 319(h) FY96 Grant funds to focus on solving our highest priority problems will enable us to make great strides in our efforts to achieve our water quality goals.
PROPOSALS FOR THE SECTION 319(h) FY96 GRANT APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE GEORGIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION BY MARCH 31, 1999. ANY PROPOSAL POSTMARKED (OR RECEIVED, IF NOT MAILED) AFTER THIS DATE WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR FUNDING UNDER THE SECTION 319(h} FY96 GRANT.
Applicants will be notified by June 30, 1999 if their Section 319(h) FY96 Grant proposals have been reviewed and approved by the GAEPD and the USEPA and are eligible for funding. Contingent upon review and approval by the USEPA, the applicants should receive the Section 319(h) FY96 Grant funds by September 30, 1999.
:..

;:s 0

GENERAL GUIDELINES

SECTION 319(h) NONPOINT SOURCE IMPLEMENTATION GRANT PROPOSALS

Proposals for the Section 319(h) FY96 Grant application must be submitted to the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GAEPD) by March 31, 1999. Any proposal postmarked (or received, if not mailed) after this date will not be considered for funding under the Section 319(h) FY96 Grant.
Please include two (2) printed copies and one (1) 3 Y2" diskette in WordPerfect for Windows format. If another word-processing format must be used, please use ASCII text format (preferably DOS). Section 319(h) FY96 Grant proposals must adhere to the format (i.e., Title Page, Project Proposal Format Parts 1 and 2) as shown on the following pages.

FAXES WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.

Organizations should send Section 319(h) FY96 Grant proposals to:
Section 319(h) FY96 Grant ATTN Frank M. Carubba
East Floyd Tower, Suite 1070 205 Butler Street, SE Atlanta, GA 30334
(404) 657-9488
E-Mail Address: frank_carubba@mail.dnr.state.ga.us

1

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK

All Section 319(h) FY96 Grant proposals must be preceded by a separate TITLE PAGE. The title page must include the following information: (1) PROJECT TITLE - The project title should uniquely identify and describe the project.
Limit the length of the title to two (2) type written lines. The project title should identify the type of project (e.g., waste management system demonstration, wetland restoration demonstration) and the name of the watershed, if applicable. (2) LEAD ORGANIZATION - The lead organization will be responsible for managing the proposed project. Please include the name, address, telephone number and fax number of the lead organization. (3) PRIMARY CONTACT - The primary contact will be the individual responsible for all correspondence and communications between the lead organization and the Georgia Environmental Protection Division. Please include the name, title, address, telephone number, fax number and E-m?Jil address of the primary contact. (4) PROJECT ABSTRACT - The project abstract should specifically identify the. nonpoint sources of pollution being addressed and the activities proposed to prevent, control and/or abate these nonpoint sources of pollution. Priority will be given to project proposals which encompass or support a watershed management approach and result in measurable improvements in water quality.
3

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK

Project Title:
The project title should uniquely identify and describe the project. Limit the length of the title to two (2) type written lines. The project title should identify the type of project (e.g., waste management system demonstration, wetland restoration demonstration) and the name of the watershed, if applicable.
Lead Organization:
The lead organization responsible for managing the proposed project must be identified.
Cooperating Organizations:
All Federal, State, regional and local organizations that will assist in the design and implementation of the proposed project must be identified, regardless of the funding source.
Nonpoint Source Management Program Milestones Supported:
Project proposals must support and specifically identify milestones and/or implementation activities described in the draft Georgia Nonpoint Source Management Program (Full Revision April, 1998). Please include the page number(s). Copies are available upon request.
Project Location and Nonpoint Source Priority Watershed:
Describe the project location (include the 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code and the coordinates for the latitude and longitude) and the name of the watershed, if applicable. Please delineate the sources of information (e.g., Section 305(b) Report, Section 303(d) list, a consolidated water quality assessment report, ground water protection strategy) that identify the water resources as being threatened or its uses impaired from nonpoint sources of pollution.
Additional information about watersheds (e.g., 8-digit hydrological unit codes, rivers and streams in the watershed, land characteristics, river corridor and wetlands restoration efforts, index of watershed indicators, etc.) may be accessed through the USEPA webpage at:
http://www .epa.gov /surf2/hucs/
The USGS 8-digit hydrological cataloging unit map for Georgia may be ordered from the USGS Earth Information Science Center (ESIC) at 1-800-USA-MAPS.
5

Priority will be given to projects located within and benefitting watersheds identified in the Water Quality in Georgia, 1994- 1995, as required by Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the April 1, 1998 list of waters, as required by Section 303(d) of the CWA, which are partially or not supporting designated beneficial uses due to nonpoint sources of pollution. Copies are available upon request.
For example, the Mulberry River in the Upper Oconee River Watershed (USGS Hydrological Cataloging Unit: 03070101) has been included on the most current Section 303(d) list of waters not supporting designated beneficial uses due to violations of fecal coliform bacteria criteria caused by nonpoint sources of pollution. Priority would be given to project proposals in this watershed addressing violations of fecal coliform bacteria criteria caused by nonpoint sources of pollution.

Project Objectives:

The project objectives should specifically identify the nonpoint sources of pollution being addressed and the activities proposed to prevent, control and/or abate these nonpoint sources of pollution:

.,.

Major Nonpoint Source Pollution Categories and Subcategories (e.g., (1 0) Agriculture-

(12) Irrigated Crop Production, (30) Construction - (32) Land Development, (70)

Hydrologic/Habitat Modification- (76) Removal of Riparian Vegetation). See attached

list of major nonpoint source pollution categories and subcategories.

.,.

Pollutants to be Addressed (e.g., fecal coliform bacteria, phosphorus, sedimentation) .

.,.

Critical Areas - The approximate size and location of the critical areas to be treated

must be identified on a map and quantified. The critical areas should be of an

appropriate size to ensure that the measures implemented will have a significant impact

on restoring or protecting designated beneficial uses within the watersheds.

.,.

Waterbody Type (e.g., River, Stream, Lake, Tidal Wetlands, Non-Tidal Wetlands).

...

Best Management Practices to be Implemented (e.g., (0472) Livestock Exclusion,

(0590) Nutrient Management, (0657) Wetland Restoration). See attached list of best

management practices.

.,.

Priority will be given to project proposals which encompass or support a watershed

management approach and result in measurable improvements in water quality. The

project objectives should relate to the identified water quality problems, be quantitative.

and result in progress towards implementation of technology-based measures or achieve

and/or maintain State water quality standards. For example, where water quality

standards are violated and a 75 percent reduction in pollutant loadings from nonpoint

sources is needed to attain and/or maintain water quality standards, an objective might

be to reduce fecal coliform bacteria loadings to a waterbody by 75 percent.

-- \

6

}

Project Description:

All Federal, State, regional and local organizations that will assist in the design and implementation of the proposed project must be identified and included as appropriate in the project development and implementation process. The roles and responsibilities of each organization participating in the proposed project must be identified, regardless of the funding source, and one (1) organization must be identified as the lead organization responsible for managing the proposed project.

The project description should delineate specific project activities and measures and indicators of progress and success. Specific project activities may include:



BMP Implementation - Demonstration Projects



Statewide Education and Information Programs



Preparation of Materials



Dissemination of Information



Assistance to other Agencies



Technical Assistance



Development of Materials



Delivery of Information



Technology Transfer



Project Management

..

Regulatory



Develop and Issue Regulations



Enforcement



Water Quality Monitoring



Public Education and Involvement



Watershed Projects



Groundwater Projects

If proposed project activities include Statewide Education and Information Programs and/or Public Education and Involvement, the project description should clearly describe the activities. tangible products, distribution of materials, and target audiences. All educational materrals (e.g., manuals, video scripts, brochures) must be submitted to the GAEPD and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for review and approval prior to distribution to ensure consistency with Federal and State regulations and guidelines.
7

If the proposed project is part of a continuing or multi-phase project, please provide all relevant background information. The information presented in the project proposal should enable the reader to have a complete understanding of what will be accomplished by the proposed project.
Specific Outputs: The project proposal should enumerate and describe specific outputs (e.g., best management practices implementation, training workshops, field days, ordinances, educational materials, reports). The project proposal must provide sufficient detail to justify all project costs. The project proposal should include an appropriate monitoring component to evaluate the effectiveness of the project {e.g., water quality monitoring, beneficial use assessments, environmental indicators). See Appendix 8, Measures and Indicators of Progress and Success, in the Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidance for Fiscal Year 1997 and Future Years. Additional information about Section 319{h) Nonpoint Source Implementation Grants may be accessed through the USEPA webpage at:
http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/ If a project proposal includes water quality monitoring, a detailed monitoring plan with Quality Assurance/Quality Control {QA/QC) procedures is required. This monitoring plan with QA/QC procedures should be submitted with the project proposal to be reviewed and approved by the GAEPD and the USEPA. See Attachment, Instructions for Quality Assurance Project Plans for Nonpoint Source Projects Involving Monitoring. The lead organization is responsible for submitting semi-annual progress reports to the GAEPD for inclusion in the USEPA Grants Reporting Tracking System (GATS) by March 31st and August 31 st of each year. Upon completion of the proposed project, the lead organization is responsible for submitting two {2) copies of a Final Project Close-Out Report to the GAEPD and the USEPA for review and approval. See Attachment, Close Out Procedures for Section 319 Grant Projects.
8

Milestones:
All project proposals must include a schedule of milestones with estimated starting dates and completion dates. Milestones are significant events or tasks that occur throughout the implementation of the proposed project. The schedule of milestones will be used to track the progress of the approved projects.
Milestones should include the execution of contracts/interagency agreements, submission of monitoring plans with Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) procedures, specific outputs, submission of final project close-out reports, etc. as shown:

Execute contract/interagency agreement with the Georgia Environmental Protection Division.
Submit monitoring plan with QA/QC procedures to the GAEPD and the USEPA for review and approval.
Develop and prepare Farm-A-Syst assessment worksheets. Submit all draft copies to the GAEPD and the USEPA for review and approval.
Submit semi-annual report for GRTS update.

10/99 11/99 12/99 03/00

Install Waste Management System Best Management Practices.
Submit semi-annual report for GRTS update.

04/00 08/00

Submit final project close-out report to the GAEPD and the USEPA for review and approval.

02/01

10/99 11/99 09/00 03/00 06/00 08/00 02/01

Milestones must be listed in chronological order according to the proposed starting date. Organizations should not plan on initiating projects before October, 1999. Please note that project activities eligible for Federal reimbursement or non-Federal matching funds or in-kind services can not begin until after the grant has been awarded, all terms and conditions of the grant have been satisfied, and the contract/interagency agreement between the Georgia Environmental Protection Division and the lead organization has been executed.
The USEPA generally adds special terms and conditions to the Section 319(h) Grants which may be applicable to the proposed projects. The Section 319(h) FY96 Grant expiration date can not be extended beyond .September, 2004. Therefore, all proposed projects must be completed and all funding must be expended by September, 2004.
9

Project Budget:
Maximum Federal reimbursement for a Nonpoint Source Implementation Grant project is 60 percent of the total project cost. Therefore, each project must provide non-Federal matching funds or in-kind services for a minimum 40 percent of the project cost. Thus, for a total project cost of $250,000, the maximum Federal reimbursement would total $150,000 and the non-Federal matching funds or in-kind services would total $100,000.
Allowable costs are determined in accordance with the cost principles applicable to the organization incurring the costs identified in 40 CFR Part 31 ( 31.22 Allowable Costs). For example, for the costs of a "State, local or Indian tribal government" use the principles in "OMB Circular A-87." Copies are available upon request.
The project budget must delineate proposed Federal and non-Federal expenditures by object class categories as shown below:

ITEM>
A B
c
D E F G H I J
K

OBJECT CLASS CATEGORY
..
PERSONNEL FRINGE BENEFITS
TRAVEL EQUIPMENT
SUPPLIES CONTRACTUAL CONSTRUCTION
OTHER TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES
(SUM OF A- H) INDIRECT CHARGES
TOTAL (SUM OF I AND J)
10

319(hJ GRANT FUNDS

c< NON FEDERAL FUNDS

TOTAL

The project proposal must provide sufficient detail to justify all project costs (i.e., Federal reimbursement and non-Federal matching funds or in-kind services). All proposed budget items must correspond to specific project activities and measures and indicators of progress and success. For example, if a turbidity meter is listed as an equipment budget item, sufficient details about specific project activities are required to justify the purchase of a turbidity meter. The project budget should include supporting information correlating proposed budget items to specific project activities as shown on the following page. Personnel budget items should include position titles, salary rates, full time equivalent (FTE) work years, and specific project activities. Travel budget items should identify personnel by position title and specific project activities. All equipment budget items and costs must be delineated separately; whereas, supply budget items may be collectively described as monitoring supplies, administrative supplies, printing supplies, etc. Contractual budget items must identify the subcontractors and specific project activities.
11

ITEM
A
B
c
D E F G H I J K

PROJECT BUDGET EXAMPLE

OBJECT CLASS CATEGORY
..
PERSONNEL:
One (1) Engineer- 0.5 FTE ($40,000/Year) (Technology Transfer and Project Management)
One (1) Coordinator- 0.5 FTE ($40,000/Year) (Public Education and Involvement)
One (1) Technician- 0.5 FTE ($40,000/Year) (Water Quality Monitoring)
FRINGE BENEFITS:
One (1) Engineer- 0.5 FTE- 35% (Technology Transfer and Project Management)
One (1) Coordinator- 0.5 FTE- 35% (Public Education and Involvement)

319(h) GRANT
FUNDS

NON FEDERAL. ~ FUNDs

20,000

20,000

9,000 7,000

7,000

TRAVEL:
One (1) Technician (Water Quality Monitoring)

1,000

0

EQUIPMENT:
Two (2) Portable Turbidity Meters (Water Quality Monitoring)

2,000

0

SUPPLIES:
Monitoring Supplies (Water Quality Monitoring)

500

0

CONTRACTUAL:
ABC Engineering, Inc. (BMP Implementation- Demonstration Project)

30,000

6,900

CONSTRUCTION:

0

OTHER:

0

TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES: (SUM OF A- HI

69,500

33,900

INDIRECT CHARGES: Indirect Charge Rate - 20% MTDC

0

12,600

TOTAL: (SUM OF I AND J)

69,500

46,500

TOTAL
20,000 20,000
9,000 7,000 7,000 1,000
2,000
0
36,900 0 0
103,400
12,600 116,000

12

SECTION A

(1) Is the requested funding necessary to adequately fund the state base program?

Yes

No

N/A

If Yes, explain:

(2) Is the requested funding necessary to complete an ongoing phase project (i.e., multiyear project that has been partially funded by Section 319(h) Grant funds)?

Yes

No

If yes, name project and grant:

(3) If this a multi-year project, have you requested sufficient funds to complete the project (assuming funds requested herein are provided)?

Yes

No

If no, explain:

(4) The Lead Organization, as listed on the title page, agrees to comply with the requirements stipulated by the grant guidelines and the reference Federal regulations and guidance. (Checking "no" or "excepted" will cause the project to have a lower ranking than a similar project by lead organizations that agree to the requirements.)

Yes

No

Yes _ _, except as noted below (list exceptions);

(5) Is this a watershed project, that is, does this project address overall management to nonpoint source pollution throughout a watershed?

Yes

No

If yes, complete SECTION B of this form.

13

SECTION 8
Name of Watershed:-------------------------Watershed Size (acres): - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Has this watershed been listed as a State priority waterbody? If yes, name the State priority list and the rank and/or priority of the watershed:

Land Uses within the Watershed (percentages):

..........

Agricultural Silvicultural Construction Urban Mining

Within the Watershed list the following:

.. Stream Miles .. Estuary Acreage .. Lake Acreage

List Impaired Designated Beneficial Use(s):

List State Water Quality Standard(s) Violated:

List Pollutants, Sources, and Affected Use(s):

Is the above use(s) impairment information based on monitoring data or professional judgement (i.e., evaluated)?

Documentation of use(s) impairment is attached. Yes

No

-~
14

Estimate of Pollutant(s) control needed to achieve water quality goal:

Best Management Practices and/or Controls to be Implemented:

Estimated Improved Water Quality:
.. Stream Miles Improved: .. Lake Acreage Improved: .. Estuarine Acres Improved:

Monitoring Program Elements:
D Not Applicable D Biological D Chemical/Physical D Habitat D Sediment D Volunteer Citizens

Monitoring Design (provide monitoring plan with QA/QC procedures in final submittal):
.. Paired Watersheds: .. Upstream - Downstream: .. Single Downstream: .. Other: .. No Monitoring

Funding Requested from Section 319(h) (include non-Federal matching funds):

.. BMP Implementation .. Technical Assistance .. Water Quality Monitoring .. Public Education .. Other
TOTAL

319(h) Grant funds

Non-Federal Matching funds

15

MAJOR NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION CATEGORIES AND SUBCATEGORIES

(10)
(20) (30) (40) (50) (60) (70) (80) (90)

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

Silviculture

21:

Harvesting, reforestation, residue management

22:

Forest management

23:

Road construction/maintenance

Construction

31 : Highway/road/bridge

32:

Land development

Urban Runoff

41 :

Storm sewers (source control)

42:

Combined sewers (source control)

43:

Surface runoff

Resource Extraction/Exploration/Development

51 : Surface mining

52:

Subsurface mining

53:

Placer mining

54:

Dredge mining

55:

Petroleum activities

56:

Mill tailings

57:

Mine tailings

Land Disposal (Runoff/Leachate From Permitted Areas)

61:

Sludge

62:

Wastewater

63:

Landfills

64:

Industrial land treatment

65:

On-site wastewater systems (septic tanks, etc.)

66:

Hazardous waste

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

Other

81:

Atmospheric deposition

82:

Waste storage/storage tank leaks

83:

Highway maintenance and runoff

84:

Spills

85:

In-place contaminants

86:

Natural

Source unknown

I

I 0310

0312

I

0313 0314

0317
I 0320

0322

I 0324 0326

0327

I 0328 0329

I 0330 0331

0335

I 0338 0340

0342

I 0344 0348

0349

0350

0352

0354

0356

0359

0362

0378

0380

0382

0386

0388

0392

I 0393 0394

0395

I

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Bedding Waste Management System Waste Storage Structure Brush Management Compost Facility Irrigation Canal/Lateral Channel Vegetation Chiseling and Subsoiling Clearing and Snagging Conservation Cover Conservation Cropping Sequence Conservation Tillage Contour Farming Contour Orchard/Other Fruit Controlled Drainage Prescribed Burning Cover/Green Manure Crop Critical Area Planting Crop Residue Use Dam-Diversion Dam-Multiple Purpose Sediment Basin Deferred Grazing Delayed Seedbed Preparation Dike Waste Treatment 'Lagoon Diversion Pond Farm and Feedlock Windbreak Fencing Field Border Irrigation Field Ditch Field Windbreak Filter Strip Firebreak Fish Stream Improvement

0397 0398 0399 0400 0402 0404 0408 0409 0410 0411 0412 0422 0423 0425 0428 0430 0436 0441
0442
0443 0447 0449 0451 0452 0453 0454 0455 0456 0460 0462
0464
0466 0468 0472 0482 0484 0490 0500

Commercial Fishponds Fish Raceway or Tank Fishpond Management Floodwater Diversion Dam-Floodwater Retarding Flood way Forest and Erosion Control Forest Land Management Grade Stabilization Structure Grasses/Legumes Rotation Grassed Waterway Hedgerow Planting Hillside Ditch Waste Storage Pond Irrigation Ditch/Canal Irrigation Pipeline Irrigation Storage Reservoir Irrigation Trickle Irrigation Sprinkler Irrigation Surface and Below Irrigation Tailwater Recover Irrigation Water Management Land Fire Control Land Shaft and Adit Closing Land Landslide Treatment Land Subsidence Treatment Land Toxic Discharge Control Land Highwall Treatment Land Clearing Precision Land Forming
~
Irrigation Land Leveling Land Smoothing Lined Waterway or Outlet Livestock Exclusion Mole Drain Mulching Woodland Site Preparation Obstruction Removal

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

0510 0512 0516 0521 0528 0530 0532 0533 0543 0544 0548 0550 0552 0554 0555 0556 0557 0558 0560 ' ~0561 0562 0566 0568 ~ 0570 0571 0572 0574 0575 0580 0582 0584 0585 0586 0587 0589 0590
0595
I
I
1
I

Pasture and Rayland Management Pasture/Rayland Planting Pipeline Pond Seali~g or Lining Proper Grazing Use Proper Woodland Grazing Pumped Well Drain Pumping Plant-Water Control Land Reconstruction Abandoned Mine Land Reconstruction Current Mine Grazing Land Mechanical Treatment Range Seeding Irrigation Pit/Reservoir Regulate Water-Drain System Rock Barrier Planned Grazing Systems Row Arrangement Roof Runoff Management Access Road Heavy Use Area Protection Recreation Area Improvement Recreation Land Grading Recreation Trail/Walkway Runoff Management System Soil Salinity Management Spoil Spreading Spring Development Stock Trails/Walkways Stream/Shoreline Protect Open Channel Stream Channel Stability Stripcropping-Contour Stripcropping-Field Structure for Water Control Stripcropping-Wind Nutrient Management Pest Management

0600 0606 0607 0608 0609 0610 0612 0614 0620 0630 0633 0636 0638 0640 0641 0642 0644 0645 0648 0650 0652 0654 0657 0660 0666 0900 0901 0902 0903 0904 0905 0906 0907 0908 0909 0910
0911
0912 0913

Terrace

Subsurface Drain

Surface Drain Field Ditch

Surface Drain Maintenance

Surface Roughening

Toxic Salt Reduction

Tree Planting

Trough or Tank

Underground Outlet

Vertical Drain

Waste Utilization

Water Harvest Catchment

Water/Sediment Control Basin

Waterspreading

Water Table Control

Well

Wildlife Wetland Management

Wildlife Upland Area Management

Wildlife Watering

Windbreak Renovation

Woodland Direct Seeding

Woodland Improved Harvest

Wetland Restoration

Woodland Pruning

Woodland Improvement

(Not Used)

Urban Catch Basin

Urban Catch Basin - Oil

Urban Catch Basin - Sand

Urban Concrete Grid

Urban Extension Detention Pond

Z,

Urban Filtration Basin

Urban Grassed Swale

Urban Infiltration Basin

Urban Infiltration Trench

Urban Porous Pavement

Urban Stormwater Wetland

Urban Vegetated Filter

Urban Wet Pond

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
Science and Ecosystem Support Division 980 College Station Road Athens, Georgia 30605-2720
ATIACH!\IENT I
The itemized elements listed below must be present in any Quality Assurance Project Plan written for environmental data acquisition activies on behalf of the USEPA. The bulleted items listed below each of the required elements, are those deemed crucial in meeting the objectives ofan effective quality assurance program for environmental and chemical data collection. For detailed information concerning the actual format, organization and content requirements, refer to EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans for Environmental Data Operations, EPA QA/R-5.

Grooup A Elements- Project Management

Title/Approval Page title of plan name of the organization(s) implementing the project names, titles, signatures, of appropriate officials and their approval dates for
organization's Project Manager organization's Quality Assurance Manager EPA Project Manager EPA Quality Assurance Manager other agencies where applicable (e.g. State, other Federal Agencies)

Table of Contents list the sections, figures, tables, references and appendices

Distribution List list the individuals and their organizations requiring copies of the approved QAPP

Project Task/Organization Chart

identify all project personnel and their roles and responsibilities also include all data users,

decision-makers, the project QA manager and all personnel responsible for implementing the

proposed effort

r(.....

provide a concise organization chart that includes the relationships and lines of communication

(or chain of command). This chart should also include all data users and subcontractors.

Project Schedule provide a schedule for implementing the project tasks (include anticipated starting and ending
dates)

Problem Definition/Background concisely state the specific problems to be resolved or decisions to be made and include any
relevant background information to provide a historical perspective

Project/Task Description include all measurements that will be taken during the course of the project

Grooup A Elements- Project Manaeement Cont'd

define the applicable or relevant regulatory or program-specific quality standards, criteria or
objectives
discuss how the acquired data will be used (e.g. site assessment, presence or absense, human
health risk assessment, compliance, nature and extent of contamination, ecological risk
assessment, or research)
list personnel and sampling or monitoring equipment requirements list the assessment tools that will be utilized to ensure that the quality objectives established
for the project are met (e.g. program technical review; peer reviews, surveillances, and
technical audits)
project records or reports that are required (identify the type of reports or records required)

Data Quality Objectives/Criteria for Measurement Data include the precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability and completeness criteria other data quality objectives apply to sample design and collection, implementation of field
measurements, statistical analysis of analytical data or mathematical models of contaminant fate and transport, etc.

Special Training Requirements/Certifications identify any special training or certification requirements needed by project personnel to
accomplish project-specific tasks

Documentation/Records list the information and documentation requirements, including the format and organization
of the proposed reports several documents or records may be required for a specific project, these include but are not
limited to: raw data field logs maintenance logs instrument printouts calibration information quality control checks laboratory case narratives

specify the final repository for these documents

Reference List

.

a list of references is required in the final section of the QAPP

Group B Elements - Measurement/Data Acquisition

_ Sampling Process Design indicate the types and numbers of samples required design of the sampling effort sampling locations and frequency of collection environmental matrices to be sampled summary of the analytical parameters of interest (for field and laboratory analyses) rationale for the design identify field measurements if applicable

Sampling Method Requirements

discuss in detail the all sampling procedures used in sample collection

identify sampling methods, equipment, implementation requirements and decontamination

procedures



field corrective actions (procedures to be implemented when non-compliance of field sampling

protocols are encountered)



identify the personnel responsible for implementing corrective actions

Sample Handling/Custody Requirements outline sample handling protocols including sample custody procedures, holding time
requirements, shipping options and schedules
_ Analytical Method Requirements provide the analytical methods to be employed, also include the following information
analytical equipment extraction or digestion procedures laboratory decontamination procedures waste disposal requirements corrective actions form and content requirements for harcopy analytical data package submittal
Note: If a laboratory-specific QAPP or SOP are referenced, provide these document in appendices to the document.
Quality Control Requirements list each required QC procedure, include the acceptance criteria and corrective actions provide a list ofthe QC samples such as matrix spike/matrix spike duplicates, duplicates, field
blanks, laboratory method blanks, laboratory control samples, instrument performance check samples, surrogates, internal standards, and second column or mass spectrometry confirmation requirement. Also discuss the frequency of collection or analysis ofthese parameters or QC samples provide a discussion on the data reduction process (precision and bias of analytical data requires discussion)
Instrument/Equipment Testing, Inspection and Maintenance Requirements describe the frequency of inspection and provide the inspection procedures to be used in
evaluating all field instruments briefly discuss corrective maintenance procedures or provide these in an appendix identify the ovesight or maintenance personnel performing the corrective actions
Instrument Calibration/Frequency identify all tools, gauges, instruments, sampling, measuring, and test equipment used for data
collection activities where quality may be impacted discuss the instrument to be utilized and the frequency of calibration (field and laboratory
instruments) describe the type of reference materials or analytical standards to be used and provide their
performance criteria
Inspection/Acceptance requirements for supplies and consumables discuss how the standards or consumables will be inspected and by whom provide the acceptance criteria for these materials
Data Acquisition Requirements (for Non-direct Measurements) ifnon-measurement sources ofdata are used, provide details regarding the source of this data
and discuss its use in meeting the project objectives provide a discussion regarding the processes to be used in evaluating and accepting this data
Data Management Requirements/Scheme provide a flow chart or schemata detailing the proposed path from data generation to reporting
and archiving (include field measurements as well as laboratory data) describe or reference the standard record-keeping procedures, document control system, and
provide a detailed discussion describing the approach selected for the storage and retrieval of electronic data if applicable discuss the procedures to be implemented to prevent the loss of data during data reduction, data reporting, and data entry to forms, reports, and databases. Also indicate whether the analytical data collected from field or laboratory instruments can be directly downloaded into

reports, spreadsheets or databases
identify and discuss all data handling equipment and procedures used to process, compile and
analyze the data. Provide information detailing the software/hardware requirements and
address any performance issues that may potentially arise during the course ofdata acquisition
and reporting.
ifsubmission ofhardcopy and electronic data reports are required, discuss how the analytical
results reported in both formats will be checked for consistency
if inconsistencies are discovered between the hardcopy and electronic reporting formats,
describe the procedures used in rectifying the situation

Group C Elements- Assessment/Oversight

Assessment/Response Actions provide the type, number and frequency of assessments to be used during the course of the
project list the assessments to be employed, their proposed schedule, performance criteria (i.e., goals,
performance objectives, acceptance criteria, or specifications), personnel conducting the assessment or audit, their respective qualifications to conduct such an audit, corrective actions to be undertaken, and documentation of findings and remedies define the authority of assessment personnel clearly define the conditions under which the auditor(s) or assessment personnel are authorized to act and provide the criteria for this action discuss the response actions to be performed, the personnel responsible for performing the corrective action, and how response action will be verified, validated and documented

Reports to Management identify the type, frequency and distribution of the required project-specific reports and
identify the personnel responsible for preparing these reports

Group D Elements- Data Validation/Data Usability

---

Data ReviewNalidation!Verification Requirements clearly state the criteria used in reviewing and validating the field and chemical data. Include
a discussion outlining the criteria to be used to determine data acceptance, rejection or qualification of analytical data provide a list and definitions of the data qualifiers to be employed
Validation!Verification Methods describe the process to be employed for validating and verifying the analytical data from data
collection to final submittal of the hardcopy or electronic data. Include a discussion on resolutions of data discrepancies and how this information will be communicated to the end data user(s).

Reconciliation with User Requirements describe how the results obtained from the project will be reconciled with the data quality
objectives discuss how data issues will be resolved and provide details on how any limitations in the
analytical data will be reported to decision-makers, key project personnel, and final data users, (e.g. risk assessors, state or federal regulators, project managers, etc.)

As a final note, the inclusion ofthe appropriate field and/or laboratory Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and laboratory-specific QAPPs, as attachments or appendices to the document, is strongly recommended. To meet the requirements stipulated in EPA QA/R.-5, it is recommended that the QAPP documents follow the guidance provided in EPA documents EPA QA/G-4 (Data Quality Object Process) and EPA QA/G-5 (Guidance for the Preparation of QAPPs) which are available thru the internet at the following address:
www.epa.gov/ncerqalqalqa_docs.html.

Notes: ./ - Element is present K - Element is absent NA - Element Not Applicable

PRQJECT
CLOSB OUT PROCEDURES SBCTIOH 319 GRANT PROJECTS
Reqion IV, Watershed t;rnit April 28, 1993
The following are the procedures for closing out projects within a Section 319 grant.
1. Title Page: Must reference the EPA grant number, the work plan project number and title, the State agency submitting the close out report, and the project period (inclu?ing extensions).
2. Project Sm-ry: Summarize project for NPS prevention and control with emphasis on lessons learned. The (EPA approved) project final report will suffice in most cases. For phased or continuing programs or projects, the project summary should focus on work accomplished and lessons learned during the project period of the identified grant.
3. Outputs: List outputs that were required under project and indicate if they were finalized/produced. For outputs committed to producing written material, provide EPA a copy of each output {if not already provided). For outputs such as workshops, meetings, etc., provide EPA a copy of the agenda (if not already provided). All other outputs should beaddressed in the list or final project report.
4. Equipment: List equipment purchased with project funds. Indicate all equipment with a current per-unit fair market value in excess of $5,000. Describe the disposition procedures for equipment (valued in excess of $5,000 per unit) in accordance with requirements of 40 CFR Part 31.32.
5 Project Budget: Summarize final budget expenditures, including matching funds. Recommend how any excess project funds should be reallocated.
6 Special CoDditions 1 List any special grant conditions that applied to the project. Indicate how they were met.

'
NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM AND GRANTS GUIDANCE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997 AND FUTURE YEARS PRINTED SEPTEMBER, 1998

-- "'int Source Program :md Grants Guidance for Fiscal Year 1997 and Future Years

http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/npsguidl.html

NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM AND GRANTS GUIDANCE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997 AND FUTURE YEARS

May 1996

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Water

Washington, D.C.

FOREWORD

In 1995 and early 1996, senior representatives of State nonpoint source agencies from each of the ten U.S. regions joined with key representatives from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in a series of meetings to discuss the future direction of the national nonpoint source program under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act. These highly productive meetings led to a common understanding that the key to significant further progress in nonpoint source control lies in effective State implementation of well-designed, supported and fmanced State programs.

This guidance represents a major step forward in providing to States the tools and the flexibility needed by States to implement highly effective nonpoint source programs. It recognizes the need for States to review and, where needed, revise their programs to focus on effective solutions to water quality problems caused by nonpoint source pollution. It also provides that, consistent with the maturation of State programs, EPA will no longer use a competitive approach to award a portion of the Section 319 funds.

This guidance provides a sound framework for setting the future course of the nonpoint source program.

Developed collaboratively by EPA and States, this guidance projects a clear vision of dynamic and

effective State programs that are designed to achieve and maintain beneficial uses of water. It is consistent

with the National Environmental Performance Partnership System and provides flexibility to States to

manage their nonpoint source programs and resources in the manner that they believe will produce the best

"- -

environmental results.

We look forward to continuing to work closely with EPA to foster positive working relationships among all our many partners with a stake in clean water. It is our hope and expectation that our efforts will lead to achievement of our common vision of achieving and maintaining beneficial uses of water for the enjoyment of future generations.

u;

913/98 11 :59 AM

Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidance for Fiscal Year 1997 and Future Years

http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/npsguidl h

Walton C. Poole, Ph.D. fD~ Co-Cb.:ir Scatei.EPA Nanpoint ~ Program Workgroup ~

This guidance promotes a new generation of strong partnerships between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and State lead nonpoint source agencies. Our long-term vision is:

ALL STATES ARE IMPLEMENTING DYNAMIC AND EFFECTIVE NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE AND MAINTAIN BENEFICIAL USES OF WATER.

To achieve this vision, EPA and State nonpoint source lead agencies have agreed upon a new, streamlined framework for the implementation of State nonpoint source programs under section 319 of the Clean Water Act. States and EPA will work together to review, revise and implement enhanced State nonpoint source management programs that apply nine key elements of State programs t;hat have been developed jointly. States will have flexibility to implement their programs in a manner that maximizes their ability to achieve our long-term vision.

Beginning in late Fiscal Year 1996, States will review and, as appropriate, revise nonpoint source management programs to reflect the following nine key elements:

I. Explicit short- and long-term goals, objectives and strategies to protect surface and ground water.

2. Strong working partnerships and collaboration with appropriate State, interstate, Tribal, regional, and local entities (including conservation districts), private sector groups, citizens groups, and Federal agencies.

3. A balanced approach that emphasizes both State-wide nonpoint source programs and on-the ground management of individual watersheds where waters are impaired or threatened.

4. The State program (a) abates known water quality impairments resulting from nonpoint source pollution and (b) prevents significant threats to water quality from present and future activities.

5. An identification of waters and watersheds impaired or threatened by nonpoint source pollution and a process to progressively address these waters.

6. The State reviews, upgrades and implements all program components required by section 319 of the Clean Water Act, and establishes flexible, targeted, iterative approaches to achieve and maintain beneficial uses of water as expeditiously as practicable.

7. An identification of Federal lands and objectives which are not managed cpnsistently with State

program objectives.



8. Efficient and effective management and implementation of the State's nonpoint source program, including necessary fmancial management.

913/98 11:59 t

.JOmL ~ource f'rogram and Grants Guidance for Fiscal Year 1997 and Future Years
>

http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/npsguid l.html

L"
9. A feedback loop whereby the State reviews, evaluates, and revises its nonpoint source assessment and its management program at least every five years.

These key elements of upgraded State nonpoint source management programs are discussed in Section III-A of this guidance and a program evaluation guide based on those nine key elements is presented in Appendix A.

Consistent with States' implementation of stronger programs, beginning in Fiscal Year 1997 EPA will no longer use a competitive approach to award a portion of section 319 funds. Rather, EPA will use the allocation formula presented in Appendix G to determine the amount to be awarded to each State. EPA will also be paring grants application procedures and reporting requirements to the minimum necessary to assure that grant funds are used legally and effectively.

A State which incorporates all nine key elements in its revised nonpoint source management program and which has proven a track record of effective implementation of its nonpoint source programs will be formally recognized by the Regional Administrator and the Assistant Administrator for Water as a Nonpoint Source Enhanced Benefits State. NPS Enhanced Benefits States will be afforded substantially reduced oversight and maximum flexibility to implement their State programs and to achieve water quality objectives. Thus, while EPA has greatly streamlined the section 319 grants program for all States, EPA is providing further flexibility to the Nonpoint Source Enhanced Benefits States with complete programs and proven track records. This additional flexibility is discussed in Section III-B.

It is our goal that within a few years, all or most States will have improved their programs to the extent that they are recognized as Nonpoint Source Enhanced Benefits States.

EPA's role in the nonpoint source program will shift away from grants oversight and administration and

towards technical assistance and cooperation to help States implement well-designed nonpoint source

management programs. Technical assistance, training, watershed- or community-based projects,

cross-border or ecosystem-wide initiatives, and special assistance in working with other Federal agencies

are examples of specific ways in which EPA will collaborate with States to achieve environmental results.

Within its resource constraints, EPA will provide more sophisticated assistance such as advanced

modeling and monitoring tools and design of high-quality watershed projects. EPA will also help arrange

for needed technical assistance in monitoring, modeling and best management practices from other Federal

agencies, especially the US Geological Survey, the US Forest Service, the Natural Resources Conservation

Service and the Bureau of Land Management. Where necessary and appropriate, EPA will also provide

special assistance with Federal agencies where Federal activities may not be consistent with State nonpoint

'--

source management programs.

I. OUR VISION

This guidance promotes a new generation of strong partnerships betWeen the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and State lead nonpoint source agencies. Our long-term vision is:

ALL STATES IMPLEMENT DYNAMIC AND EFFECTIVE NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE AND MAINTAIN BENEFICIAL USES OF WATER.

To achieve this vision, this guidance establishes a new, streamlined framework for the implementation of State nonpoint source management programs under section 319 of the Clean Water Act. States and EPA will work together to revise, approve, and implement enhanced State nonpoint source management

9~/QfJ. 11-.c;Q AM

Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidance for Fiscal Year 1997 and Future Years

http://www.epa.gov/OWQ,W/N"PSJnpsguicii.ht

programs that apply nine key elements. States will have the freedom to implement their programs in a flexible manner that maximizes their ability to achieve our long-term vision, supported by a reasonably predictable flow of nonpoint source grants from EPA.
ll. INTRODUCTION

Congress enacted section 319 of the Clean Water Act in 1987, establishing a national program to control nonpoint sources of water pollution. Nonpoint source pollution is caused by rainfall or snowmelt moving over and through the ground and carrying natural and human-made pollutants into lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands, estuaries, other coastal waters, and ground water. Atmospheric deposition and hydrologic modification are also sources of nonpoint pollution.
Under section 319, States address nonpoint pollution by developing nonpoint source assessment reports that identify nonpoint source pollution problems and the nonpoint sources responsible for the water quality problems. States also adopt management programs to control nonpoint source pollution and then implement the management programs. Section 319(h) provides for EPA's award of grants to States to help them to implement those management programs. Both the assessment report and management program must be approved by EPA in order for a State to be eligible for section 319(h) funds. All States now have EPA-approved assessment reports and management programs.
Congress appropriated the first section 319 grant funds in Fiscal Year (FY) 1990. On December 1 and 15, 1989, EPA issued interim guidance for awarding FY 1990 grant funds to the States, including an interim planning target formula based on nonpoint source control needs.
After soliciting and obtaining public comment, EPA issued final grant guidance on February 15, 1991.
The 1991 guidance served as the main national guidance for the award of section 319(h) grants in FY 1991 - 1993. On June 24, 1993, EPA published a revised nonpoint source grants guidance to include an expedited schedule for awarding section 319(h) grants, improvements to the process for awarding such grants, and clarifications on reporting and other requirements. This revised guidance served as the basis for nonpoint source grants from FY 1994 to FY 1996.
States, Territories, and Tribes have made substantial progress in tackling high priority nonpoint source water quality problems. Projects that have received funding from section 319 grants have ranged from information and educational programs to the demonstration of innovative technologies and watershed-based approaches to solving water quality problems. With the help of section 319 grants, States have been able to address site- and watershed-specific water quality problems as well as to initiate and maintain State-wide nonpoint source programs.
In recognition of this progress, representatives of EPA and State lead nonpoint source agencies held a series of meetings in 1995 to consider fundamental changes to the nonpoint source program. These meetings reflected the twin premises that given the increasing maturity of State programs, it is timely for the States to review, revise, and implement enhanced nonpoint source management programs, and it is correspondingly appropriate for EPA to provide States with increased flexibility to manage and implement these programs, supported by a streamlined and more efficient grants oversight process.
These meetings led to initial grants policy changes that were announced in a memorandum dated April 7, 1995, which became effective at the beginning ofFY 1996. Those changes, which continue to be reflected
913/98 11:59 .

.. ooint Source Program and Grants Guidance for Fiscal Year 1997 and Future Years

http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/npsguidl.html

in this guidance, provide States greater flexibility to use a portion of their grant funds to improve their nonpoint source assessments and upgrade their nonpoint source management programs.
This guidance also continues the policy announced in the April 7, 1995 memorandum that States will now have greater flexibility to set their own priorities. Specifically, several set-asides or separate funding elements that applied in the past are now removed for ground-water protection, watershed resource restoration, and national nonpoint source monitoring projects. The original purposes of these set asides have been fulfilled or exceeded, so they are no longer necessary.
In subsequent meetings, EPA and State lead nonpoint source agencies considered more fundamental changes to the national nonpoint source program. The results of these efforts are reflected in this guidance.
B. Scope of This Guidance
This guidance is primarily directed towards nonpoint source management programs and grants administered by State lead nonpoint source agencies designated under section 319 of the Clean Water Act. Territories of the United States are included by the Clean Water Act in the term "States" and are included as States in this guidance.
Properly qualified Native American Tribes may also administer nonpoint source management programs under section 319 of the Clean Water Act. This guidance is not specifically directed to Tribal nonpoint source management programs, however, but may be used for administering section 319 programs and grants with the agreement of EPA and the eligible Tribe. Alternatively, A Tribal Guide to the State Section 319 Nonpoint Source Management Program (USEPA, Office of Water, September 1994) may be used.
This guidance contains two components. First, it establishes a framework for reviewing, revising, and approving enhanced State nonpoint source management programs. Second, it establishes a new framework for the national nonpoint source grants program. This guidance will serve as the basis for State nonpoint source management programs and for the national nonpoint source grants program, beginning in FY 1997. This guidance supersedes and replaces the Nonpoint Source Guidance issued by EPA in December 1987 and the Final Guidance on the Award ofNonpoint Source Grants issued in June 1993.
This national guidance is intended to serve as the basis for a nationally consistent approach for State nonpoint source management programs and grants. Therefore. beginning in FY 1997. Regions will not issue separate. supplemental guidance specifically for State nonpoint source programs or grants. If particular Regional circumstances require additional clarifications on a particular issue, the Region will consult with the affected States and with EPA Headquarters on the appropriate next steps.
As in the past, EPA's policy will be to award all section 319 grants under section 319(h), in lieu of awarding separate grants under section 319(!). Thus this guidance applies to all section 319 grants. This approach will encourage integration of ground-water activities with overall State nonpoint source control programs, while maximizing State flexibility to consider and prioritize all causes and effects of nonpoint sources of water pollution.
C. Relationship to the National Environmental Performance Partnership System and Performance Partnership Grants
On May 17, 1995, State and EPA leaders signed a "Joint Commitment to Reform Oversight and Create a National Environmental Performance partnership System" (NEPPS). The objective of signing this agreement was to accelerate the transition to a new working relationship between EPA and the States --

16

913/98 11:59 AM

Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidance for Fiscal Year 1997 and Future Years

http://www.epa.gov/OWOWINPS/npsguid I ht

one which reflects the advancement made in environmental protection over the preceding two decades by both the States and EPA.

Key goals that this new partnership agreement shares with Performance Partnership Grants (PPG) are: to allow States and EPA to achieve improved environmental results by directing scarce public resources toward the highest priority, highest value activities; to provide States with greater flexibility to achieve those results; to improve public understanding of environmental conditions and choices; and to enhance accountability to the public and taxpayers. Other key goals of the NEPPS partnership agreement are increased reliance on self-management by State programs and a differential approach to oversight that serves as an incentive for State programs to perform well, rewarding strong programs and freeing up federal resources to address problems where State programs need assistance.

This guidance has been drafted to be consistent with the overall framework of The National Environmental

''),

Performance Partnership System and Performance Partnership Grants. The nonpoint source program is an

eligible grant program in a Performance Partnership Grant. For those States that wish to include the

nonpoint source program in their request for a PPG and/or NEPPS Agreement, this guidance should be

used as the foundation for substantive discussions on establishing nonpoint source environmental goals

and program performance expectations. In particular, States choosing to enter into Environmental

Performance Agreements with EPA should address the nine key elements of an effective State nonpoint

source program, discussed below, as part of these agreements.

D. The Watershed Approach and Community-based Environmental Protection

EPA is working to realign its programs to support community-based environmental protection, whereby local stakeholders join forces to plan and implement environmental protection measures that make good sense for the particular conditions found within their communities. For water resources, such community-based environmental protection is frequently embodied in the watershed approach.

The watershed approach is a coordinating framework for environmental management that focuses public and private sector efforts to address the highest priority water-related problems within geographic areas, considering both surface and ground water flow. The watershed approach is commonly characterized py four principles: a) well integrated partnerships, b) a specific geographic focus, c) action driven by environmental objectives and by strong science and data, and d) coordinated priority setting and integrated solutions.

This guidance should be used by EPA and States to help advance the watershed approach and community-based environmental protection as a means for resolving nonpoint source pollution problems and threats. Some States and EPA Regions have historically focussed their nonpoint source programs narrowly on demonstrations, supported by Federal section 319 grants. As States and EPA move away from demonstrations and toward watershed- or community-based nonpoint source programs to solve nonpoint source pollution problems on a much wider scale, this guidance is intended to clarify State and EPA goals and responsibilities and to hasten the change in focus.

E. Relationship to Other Environmental Protection Programs

The goal of national and State nonpoint source programs is to achieve and maintain beneficial uses of water. EPA and the States recognize that, to achieve this goal, EPA's and States' nonpoint source programs must be well integrated with other environmental and natural resource management programs. These programs include point soi.Irce programs, particularly with respect to common and overlapping areas such as urban runoff, construction, inactive and abandoned mines, animal waste facilities, and marinas;

fi of 16

9!3!98 11:59 A

;)Jll' .:.ource t'rogram ana Grants Guidance for Fiscal Year 1997 and Future Years

http://www.epagov/OWOWINPS/npsguid l.html

comprehensive State ground-water protection programs; clean lakes programs; wetlands protection programs; estuary programs; watershed planning and total maximum daily loads; and ambient monitoring programs. Moreover, nonpoint source management programs should be consistent with the broad overarching principles of environmental management, including watershed protection and pollution prevention. Accordingly, State nonpoint source programs need to be broadly inclusive so as to best meet States' water quality needs.
Beneficial uses of water (usually termed 'designated uses') are established by States, participating Tribes and other jurisdictions as a part of State water quality standards adopted and approved under section 303 of the Clean Water Act. State water quality standards are dynamic in nature and are periodically revised to reflect changes in science and law, which may in tum result in changes to the specific objectives and requirements in State section 319 nonpoint source management programs. Since our vision for national and State nonpoint source programs is tied to the attainment and maintenance of beneficial uses of water, State nonpoint source programs must be closely coordinated with State water quality standards programs and be periodically revised to reflect changes in beneficial. uses.
m. NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
EPA and the State lead nonpoint source agencies agree that the national nonpoint source program should be redesigned to create incentives and support for States to develop enhanced nonpoint source management programs that successfully address all of the nine key elements of an effective State program as listed and discussed below. EPA's approach will be to work closely with the States and give them programmatic and technical support as they move into a more advanced and independent level of program implementation.
A key feature of the new approach is to recognize and reward States that adopt nine key program elements and which have a proven track record of effectively implementing nonpoint source programs. EPA intends that these States will be formally recognized as Nonpoint Source Enhanced Benefits States by EPA's Regional Administrators and the Assistant Administrator for Water and be provided benefits commensurate with their advanced level of program accomplishment. These benefits are described in Section ill-B and include priority for multi-year grant work plans, streamlined review of grants applications, increased technical assistance, reduced reporting requirements, and reduced EPA oversight.
It is EPA's goal that within the next few years, all or most States will have improved their programs to the extent that they are recognized as Nonpoint Source Enhanced Benefits States. EPA will focus its available resources on helping States achieve and maintain this advanced level of program development and implementation.
A. Nine Key Elements of an Effective State Prouam
EPA and the State lead nonpoint source agencies agree that the following nine key elements characterize an effective and dynamic State nonpointsource program. Each key element appears in bold type and is then followed by explanatory text that elaborates on the key element. The explanatory text provides information on means by which the States may choose to implement the key element.
All States will review and, as appropriate, revise their nonpoint source management programs in a manner that reflects these nine key elements. States will then submit their upgraded programs to EPA for approval. As discussed below in Sections ill-B and V of this guidance, States that successfully incorporate these nine key elements into their programs and have a proven track record of effective implementation will be recognized Nonpoint Source Enhanced Benefits States and be provided maximum flexibility in

9/3/98 11 :59 AM

Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidance for Fiscal Year 1997 and Future Years

http://www .epa.gov/OWOWINPS/npsguidl. h

implementing their programs and other benefits.
1. The State program contains explicit short- and long-term goals, objectives and strategies to protect surface and ground water.
The State's long-term goals are consistent with the national program vision that all States implement dynamic and effective nonpoint source programs designed to achieve and maintain beneficial uses of water. The shorter-term objectives consist of activities, with milestones, that are designed to demonstrate reasonable further progress that leads to accomplishment of the long-term goals as expeditiously as possible. The State program includes objectives that address nonpoint sources of ground-water pollution. The objectives list both implementation steps and the results to be achieved (e.g., water quality improvements or load reductions).
The State program includes long-term goals; shorter-term (e.g., 3- to 5-year) objectives that are periodically updated based on progress; strategies to achieve progress towards achieving the goals, objectives; indicators to measure progress; and annual work plans to implement the strategies.
2. The State strengthens its working partnerships and linkages to appropriate State, interstate, Tribal, regional, and local entities (including conservation districts), private sector groups, citizens groups, and Federal agencies.
The State uses a variety of formal and informal mechanisms to form and sustain these partnerships. Examples include memoranda of agreement, letters of support, cooperative projects, sharing and combining of funds, and meetings to share information and ideas.
The State nonpoint source lead agency works collaboratively with other key State and local nonpoint source entities in the development and implementation of the section 319 management program, and actively involves them in decision making. Interagency collaborative teams, nonpoint source task forces, and representative advisory groups have all proven effective for accomplishing these linkages, especially where they meet on a regular basis and are managed in a collaborative and inclusive manner.
Further, the State seeks public involvement and comment on significant proposed program changes and engages in public education activities to promote public awareness of nonpoint source pollution and its solutions. As appropriate, representatives are involved from local, regional, State, interstate, Tribal and Federal agencies, and public interest groups, industries, academic institutions, private landowners and producers, concerned citizens and others. This involvement helps ensure that environmental objectives are well integrated with those for economic stability and other social and cultural goals.
3. The State uses a balanced approach that emphasizes both State-wide nonpoint source programs and on-the-ground management of individual watersheds where waters are impaired or threatened.
The State nonpoint source management program emphasizes a watershed management approach and is well integrated with other important programs to protect and restore water quality. These include point source, ground water, drinking water, clean lakes, wetlands protection, and national estuary programs; coastal zone programs; conservation, and pesticide management programs; forestry programs; and other natural resource and environmental management programs.
Each State has the flexibility to design its nonpoint source management program in a manner that is best suited to attain and maintain beneficial uses of water. On-the-ground implementation of practices and programs is the best means of reducing and preventing pollution from nonpoint sources, but States may

8 of 16

913/98 11 :59 t

JOJnt Source Program and Grants Guidance for Fiscai Year 1997 and Future Years

http:llwww.epagov/OWOW/NPS!npsguidl.html

achieve this on-the-ground implementation by a combination of watershed approaches and State-wide programs. Similarly, as described more fully in key element 5 below, the State may use any combination of water-quality or technology-based approaches it deems appropriate to make progress towards attaining and maintaining beneficial uses of water.
4. The State program (a) abates known water quality impairments from nonpoint source pollution and (b) prevents significant threats to water quality from present and future nonpoint source activities.
The program is designed to remedy waters that the State has identified as impaired by nonpoint source pollution. Further, the program is designed to prevent new water quality problems from present and reasonably foreseeable nonpoint source activities, especially in waters which currently meet water quality standards.
While it may take years to remedy waters that are already impaired, it is also important for States to take appropriate steps expeditiously to protect clean waters from reasonably foreseeable degradation. State programs should place a priority on protecting waters from future nonpoint source pollution as soon as possible (generally within 5 years).
5. The State program identifies waters and their watersheds impaired by nonpoint source pollution and identifies important unimpaired waters that are threatened or otherwise at risk. Further, the State establishes a process to progressively address these identified waters by conducting more detailed watershed assessments and developing watershed implementation plans, and then by implementing the plans.
The State identifies waters impaired by nonpoint source pollution based on currently available information (e.g., in reports under sec.tions 305(b), 319(a), 303(d), 314(a), and 320), and revises its list periodically as more up-to-date assessment information becomes available. The State also identifies important unimpaired waters th~t are threatened or otherwise at risk from nonpoint source pollution.
In addition the State identifies the primary categories and subcategories causing the water quality impairments, threats, and risks. At 5-year intervals, the State updates the identification of waters and their watersheds impaired or threatened by nonpoint source pollution preferably as part of a single comprehensive State water quality assessment which integrates reports required by sections 305{b), 319(a), 303(d), 314(a) and 320.
The factors used by the State to progressively address its waters may include a variety of relevant environmental and administrative considerations, including, for example:
human health; ecosystem health including ecological risk; the beneficial uses of the water; value of the watershed or ground-water area to the public; vulnerability of the surface or ground water to additional environmental degradation; likelihood of achieving demonstrable environmental results; implementability; extent of alliances with other Federal agencies and States to coordinate resources and actions; and readiness to proceed.
The State links its prioritization and implementation strategy to other programs and efforts as appropriate.

913/98 11 :59 AM

Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidance for Fiscal Year 1997 and Future Years

http://www.epa.gov/OWOWINPS/npsguid l.ht

Examples include total maximum daily loads, clean lakes programs, comprehensive ground-water protection programs, source water protection programs, wetlands protection programs, national estuary programs, ambient monitoring programs, and pesticides management programs. Related programs administered by agricultural, forestry, highway, and other agencies should also be linked, for example, USDA's Water Quality Initiative, PL-534 and PL-566 Watershed Projects and the Northwest Salmon Initiative. In establishing priorities for ground-water activities, the State considers wellhead protection areas, ground-water recharge areas, and zones of significant ground water/surface water interaction.
More detailed information on priority setting is also contained in pp. 11 and 12 of the December 1987 Nonpoint Source Guidance; Setting Priorities: The Key to Nonpoint Source Control (EPA, 1987); Selecting Priority Nonpoint Source Projects: You Better Shop Around (EPA, 1989); Geographic Targeting: Selected State Examples (EPA, 1993) and Watershed Protection: A Project Focus (EPA, 1995).
6. The State reviews, upgrades, and implements all program components required by section 319(b) of the Clean Water Act, and establishes flexible, targeted, and iterative approaches to achieve and maintain beneficial uses of water as expeditiously as practicable. The State programs include:
o A mix of water quality-based and/or technology-based programs designed to achieve and maintain beneficial uses of water; and
o A mix of regulatory, non-regulatory, imancial and technical assistance as needed to achieve and maintain beneficial uses of water as expeditiously as practicable.
Section 319(b) specifies the minimum contents of State nonpoint source management programs. Tliese include:
(i) An identification of the measures (i.e., systems of practices) that will be used to control nonpoint sources of pollution, focusing on those measures which the State believes will be most effective in achieving and maintaining water quality standards. These measures may be individually identified or presented in manuals or compendiums, provided that they are specific and are related to the category or subcategory of nonpoint sources. They may also be identified as part of a watershed approach towards achieving water quality standards, whether locally, within a watershed, or state-wide;
(ii) An identification of programs to achieve implementation of the measures, including, as appropriate, nonregulatory or regulatory programs for enforcement, technical assistance, fmancial assistance, education, training, technology transfer, and demonstration projects. States should establish a flexible, targeted approach to solve their water quality problems. States have the freedom to decide the best approaches for solving the problems that they identify under key element 5 above. These approaches may include one or all of the following:
watershed or water quality-based approaches aimed at meeting water quality standards directly; iterative, technology-based approaches based on best management practices or measures, applied on
either a categorical or site-specific basis; or an appropriate mix of these approaches.
(iii) A description of the processes used to coordinate and, where appropriate, integrate the various programs used to implement nonpoint source pollution controls in the State;
(iv) A schedule with goals, objectives, and annual milestones for implementation at the earliest practicable date: legal authorities to implement the program; available resources; and institutional relationships;

10of16

9!3/98 12:03 p

JOint Source Program and Grants Guidance for Fiscal Year 1997 and Future Years

http://www.epagov/OWOWINPS/npsguid l.html

(v) If the State program is changed substantially, certification by the Attorney General or designee;

(vi) Sources of funding from Federal (other than section 319), State, local, and private sources;

(vii) Federal land management programs, development projects and fmancial assistance programs (see key element 7 below); and

(viii) A description of the monitoring and other evaluation programs that the State will conduct to help determine short- and long-term program effectiveness.

In addition. State nonpoint source programs must incorporate existing baseline requirements established by other applicable Federal or State laws to the extent that they are relevant. For example, coastal States and Territories should include or cross-reference approved State coastal nonpoint source programs required by section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990. In this manner, States can make sure that these coastal nonpoint source programs, and other relevant baseline programs are integrated into section 319 programs and that they are eligible for section 319(h) grant funding, which is limited by section 319(h)(l) to "the implementation of approved section 319 programs."

All of these components should be identified by the State, included in the State nonpoint source management program and be reviewed and approved by EPA under section 319 of the Clean Water Act.

7. The State identifies Federal lands and activities which are not managed consistently with State

nonpoint source program objectives. Where appropriate, the State seeks EPA assistance to help

resolve issues.



The State commits to reviewing and identifying those Federal land management programs, development projects and financial assistance programs that are or may be inconsistent with the State's nonpoint source management program.

As a Federal agency, EPA has a special role to play in support of State nonpoint source programs by working with other Federal agencies to enhance their understanding of the significance of nonpoint source pollution and of the need to work cooperatively with States to solve nonpoint source problems. Where appropriate, EPA will help develop memoranda of agreement among States and Federal agencies to help reduce nonpoint source pollution on Federal lands and to better address nonpoint source pollution in Federal assistance programs and development projects. IIi addition, where appropriate, EPA will assist in resolving particular issues that arise between the State and Federal agencies with respect to Federal consistency with the State nonpoint source management program.

8. The State manages and implements its nonpoint source program efficiently and effectively,

including necessary f'mancial management.



The State implements its program to solve its water quality problems as effectively and expeditiously as possible. Timeliness is key to accomplishing environmental objectives and demonstrating results as soon as possible. To help assure that priority water quality problems are addressed cost-effectively and in a timely manner, the State includes in its program a process for identifying the critical areas requiring treatment and protection within watersheds selected for implementation activities, and assigns the highest priority to addressing those areas.

'16

913/98 12:03 PM

http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/npsguidl.htJ.

The State employs appropriate programmatic and fmancial systems that ensure that section 319 dollars are used consistently with its legal obligations, and generally manages all nonpoint source programmatic funds to maximize environmental benefits. The State ensures that section 319 funds complement and leverage funds available for technical and financial assistance from other Federal sources and agencies.

9. The State periodically reviews and evaluates its nonpoint source management program using environmental and functional measures of success, and revises its nonpoint source assessment and its management program at least every five years.

In its upgraded program, the State establishes appropriate measures of progress in meeting its programmatic and environmental goals and objectives identified in key element #1 above. The State also describes a monitoring/evaluation strategy and a schedule to measure success in meeting those goals and objectives. The State integrates monitoring and evaluation strategies with ongoing Federal natural resource inventories and monitoring programs.

Appendix A presents a guide for evaluating the effectiveness of State nonpoint source management programs, based on these nine key elements. Approaches to environmental indicators and monitoring and described below.

a. Environmental Indicators

States are encouraged to use several sets of measures to fully indicate their success in implementing their nonpoint source programs. These include measures that indicate progress towards achieving and maintaining beneficial uses of water; towards long-term goals (e.g., installing appropriate technology at all animal waste facilities that need to be upgraded, or implementing particular watershed projects); and towards shorter-term goals and objectives (e.g., successfully implementing a particular technology).

Appendix B contains an illustrative set of indicators and other measures that can help the States and the public gauge the progress and success of their programs. States may identify and use other indicators and measures that are most relevant to their particular nonpoint source problems, programs, and projects. However, States are strongly encouraged to use environmental endpoints to the greatest extent feasible, so that the State and the public may best recognize the State's progress in addressing water quality problems in terms that are most relevant to the public's concerns. In addition, as discussed in section IV-D of this guidance, States must include in its annual reports at least the three measures of progress that are identified in section 319(h)(ll), including implementation milestones, available information on reductions in nonpoint source pollutant loadings, and available information on improvements in water quality.

EPA is currently developing a broad strategy for the use of environmental indicators for its various environmental programs, including its water programs. The list in Appendix B, while providing more detail on indicators that are of particular relevance to State nonpoint source programs, is consistent with the environmental indicators adopted nationally by EPA to measure progress towards environmental goals.

b. Monitoring in Watershed Projects

Appropriate monitoring of watershed project implementation is an essential tool to enable States to

identify nonpoint source pollution problems and to evaluate nonpoint source program effectiveness. First,

States need to identify sources, document the effectiveness of individual measures and BMP systems, and

develop watershed-level strategies to prevent and control nonpoint source pollution. Second, in the case of

r

~\

watershed projects intended to demonstrate a new or innovative technical or institutional approach to

resolving nonpoint source water quality problems, monitoring is needed to developing the information and

ofl6

913/98 12:03 PM

lOint Source Program and Grants Guidance for Fiscal Year 1997 and Furure Years
..

http://www.epa.gov/OWOW!NPS/npsguid1.html

data necessary to demonstrate the project's effectiveness and the applicability of the approach elsewhere. Third, monitoring is needed to help States meet the annual reporting requirements of section 319(h)(11), especially information on reductions in nonpoint source pollutant loading and improvements in water quality. Therefore, an appropriate type of monitoring should be considered for watershed projects funded with section 319 grants.

Major watershed projects should include some form of tracking or monitoring to evaluate effectiveness. Watershed implementation plans should include clearly stated monitoring objectives and an evaluation strategy making clear what the State expects to learn as a result of its evaluation of the project. The evaluation approach may be tailored to the specific project, based on factors such as the project's size and objectives. Approaches that can be used to meet the project evaluation needs include ambient water quality monitoring (e.g., edge-of-field, small watersheds, multiple watersheds, in-lake, in-aquifer monitoring)., beneficial use assessment (e.g., biological/ habitat assessment, attainment of water quality standards), implementation monitoring (e.g., audits, activity tracking, geographic information system tracking of land use and land management), model projections, and photographic evidence. Ambient monitoring and beneficial use assessment tracking should be included for projects wherever feasible.

While States may use section 319(h) grant funds for monitoring activities for particular watershed projects, States are encouraged to also explore other approaches to conducting monitoring. For examples, the U.S. Geological Survey and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration hold an array of ambient data and can provide support for various monitoring activities, and volunteer monitoring programs are a useful resource in many States.

c. National Monitoring Program

To provide a credible national documentation of the feasibility of controlling and preventing pollution resulting from nonpoint sources, and to improve technical understanding of nonpoint source pollution and the effectiveness of nonpoint source control technology and approaches, EPA has established a more rigorous and standardized monitoring framework that can be used for a representative subset of watershed projects funded under section 319. This monitoring will be continued for this subset of selected watershed projects for appropriately long periods of time e.g., 6-10 years. States are strongly encouraged to conduct intensive water quality monitoring of one or more projects within the State as part of this national evaluation.

EPA has developed a framework for selecting national monitoring projects, issued guidelines for minimum monitoring activities, and developed software for managing and reporting data (see Appendix H for references). To date, 17 high-quality national projects have been selected across the country through a rigorous but collaborative process involving the State the EPA Region, and EPA Headquarters (these projects are listed in Appendix I). Additional high-quality monitoring projects will be selected in future years using the same collaborative process. For all projects, EPA provides specialized technical support in project development, monitoring design, data management and analysis, and reporting. From time to time, and in close collaboration with relevant States and project managers, EPA will publish progress reports and results.

Prior to Fiscal Year 1996, a small set aside was provided from section 319 grants for these national monitoring projects. Beginning in FY 1996, this set aSide was eliminated along with all other discretionary set asides. Therefore, States are now strongly encouraged to give priority to projects in the National Monitoring Program. By the nature of nonpoint source pollution, long term monitoring results are crucial to determine successes and BMP effectiveness, which in turn requires sustained year-to-year funding. For those not familiar with this program, a detailed description of the national monitoring projects is available

, 16

913/98 12:03 PM

http://www.epagov/OWOW/NPS/npsguid1 ~
from EPA.
B. Toward Our Vision: Dynamic and Effective Nonpoint Source Prouams
All States and Territories now have approved nonpoint source management programs supported by Federal grants awarded under section 319. EPA and designated State lead nonpoint source lead agencies are committed to work to achieve our vision that all States are implementing dynamic and effective nonpoint source programs designed to achieve and maintain beneficjal uses of water.
Generally, EPA's administration of section 319 grants, as well as EPA's technical assistance and support to States, should reflect the different levels of capability and accomplishment among the States. Moreover, EPA programs and State nonpoint source management programs alike will flourish best in an atmosphere of open discussion and collaboration. Therefore, based on open and collegial reviews of performance, EPA will provide recognition and enhanced administrative benefits to States which manifest the vision of this program.
Specifically, EPA and State senior managers should meet at least once a year to discuss (i) State nonpoint source environmental accomplishments and remaining problems, (ii) State nonpoint source management programs and needs for adjustment or evolution, and (iii) overall progress towards the vision of this program. Similarly, State needs for technical assistance and help from EPA should be discussed and agreed to. To the extent that a State has chosen to apply for a Performance Partnership Grant or participate in the National Environmental Performance Partnership System, the nonpoint source program should be discussed in the context of the overall environmental needs and goals of the State and as a component of the overall State-EPA environmental performance agreement.
EPA will promote State progress towards the vision of the program through incentives and technical support, in full collaboration with the State, and EPA will continue to support State programs financially
through section 319 grants as a minimum. Administrative incentives will be offered to States to further
encouraged to achieve the vision, including but not limited to recognition ofNonpoint Source Enhanced Benefits States.
A State which incorporates all nine key elements in its revised nonpoint source management program and which has proven a track record of effective implementation of its nonpoint source programs will be formally recognized by the Regional Administrator and the Assistant Administrator for Water as a Nonpoint Source Enhanced Benefits State.
NPS Enhanced Benefits States will be afforded substantially reduced oversight and maximum flexibility to implement their State programs and to achieve and maintain beneficial uses of water. Thus, while EPA has greatly streamlined the section 319 grants program for all States (e.g., grantee performance reports are generally to be required no more frequently than semi-annually), EPA is providing further flexibility to Nonpoint Source Enhanced Benefits States with complete programs and proven track records. A proven track record of effective implementation is indicated by the State's success to date in (a) establishing nonpoint source controls and installing measures and practices that provide real movement towards achieving water quality objectives through nonpoint source control, (b) generally meeting legal requirements relating to fiscal and administrative management.
Specifically, Nonpoint Source Enhanced Benefits States will be afforded the following benefits, as a minimum:
Top priority for developing multi-year work plans, thus eliminating yearly negotiations and

f0fl6

913/9'12, 12m PM

,._;w~ .;,ource nogram ana Grants Guidance for Fiscal Year 199/ and Future Years

http://www.epa.gov/OWOWINPS/npsguid l.html

paperwork; Minimal EPA review of grant work plans; Amount and frequency of reporting reduced to minimum (e.g., grantee performance reports are to be
required no more frequently than annually); Substantially reduced intensity and frequency of EPA oversight, including minimal evaluations of
States' self-assessments and statutorily-mandated reports; and Top priority for advanced technical expertise and assistance.

See Section IV. A. below for additional information on reduced oversight for Enhanced Benefits States.

Beginning in FY 1997, the EPA Regional Office will determine whether a State should be recognized as a Nonpoint Source Enhanced Benefits State, based on a timely and collaborative process involving the State and EPA Headquarters. Information, questions and issues will be discussed and shared among all these parties. EPA's recognition will be provided by the Regional Administrator and the Assistant Administrator for Water, accompanied by a public announcement and written recognition.

Once a State has been recognized as a Nonpoint Source Enhanced Benefits State, it will retain that status unless EPA determines that it no longer qualifies. In consultation with EPA Headquarters, the EPA Region and the State will review a State's Enhanced Benefits status every two or three years as needed to assure that the nonpoint source management program continues to include all nine key elements and that it maintains a proven track record of implementation.

EPA and the designated State lead nonpoint source agencies intend that within a few years, all or most States will have improved their programs and track records so that they are recognized as Nonpoint Source Enhanced Benefits States.

EPA's role will increasingly be focused on helping States which have not incorporated all nine key elements in its revised nonpoint source management program to do so, in a manner appropriate to the needs of the State. Further, EPA will focus increasingly on providing appropriate technical assistance and support to these States to help them implement their approved nonpoint source management programs and to build a good track record of implementation.

For all States, EPA's role in the nonpoint source program will shift away from grants oversight and

administration and towards technical assistance and cooperation to help States implement well-designed

nonpoint source management programs. Technical assistance, training, watershed- or community-based

projects, cross-border or ecosystem-wide initiatives, and special assistance in working with other Federal

agencies are examples of specific ways in which EPA will help States achieve environmental results.

'--

Within its resource constraints, EPA will provide more sophisticated assistance such as advanced

modeling and monitoring tools and design of high-quality watershed projects. EPA will also help arrange

for needed technical assistance in monitoring, modeling and best management practices from other Federal

agencies, ineluding the US Geological Survey, the US Forest Service, the Natural Resources Conservation

Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Office of Surface Mining, the Army

Corps of Engineers, and the Bureau of Land Management. Further, where necessary and appropriate, EPA

will also provide special assistance with Federal agencies where Federal activities may not be consistent

with State nonpoint source management programs.

EPA's role should be discussed and opportunities for EPA technical assistance and support to the State should be specifically identified during the annual State-EPA discussions of performance and progress.

continue to Section IV. GRANTS

9/3/98 12:03 PM

Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidance for Fiscal Year 1997 and Future Years

http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/npsguidl.h;

Table of Contents
NPS Homepage
EPA H0MEPAGE IOWOW HOME ISEARCH ICOMMENTS Environmental Protection Agency's Office ofWetlands, Oceans, & Watersheds
Revised December 30, 1997 URL: http://www.epa.gov/OWOWINPS/npsguidl.html

16of 16

913/98 12:03 I

,point Source Program and Grants Guidance, Section IV: Grants

http:/IWWW.epa.goVJOWOW;NP5mpsguoci.:..ntm.

IV. GRANTS
A fundamental principle of this guidance is that States should have the flexibility to use section 319 grant funds in a manner that they determine will best implement their nonpoint source management programs effectively to achieve the vision established at the beginning ofthis guidance and to achieve the specific goals and objectives established in their State nonpoint source management programs. Moreover, EPA and States will continue to reduce administrative responsibilities to the lowest level possible to assure that
the funds are being used effectively and in a legally appropriate manner.
A. Funding Process
1. General Approach to Awarding Funds
Beginning in FY 1997, EPA will no longer use a competitive process for awarding section 319 grants. Rather, EPA will use the allocation formula presented in Appendix G to determine the amount to be awarded to each State (this formula remains unchanged from previous guidance but may be updated in the future to reflect up-to-date statistics). Each year, the Congressional appropriation for section 319 will be multiplied by the applicable percentage presented in Appendix G to determine each State's allocation for that year. As soon as the annual section 319 appropriation is made by Congress, EPA Headquarters will immediately notify the EPA Regional offices of each State's allocation, and the Regions will immediately notify the States.
Consistent with historical practice, EPA will continue to award all appropriated section 319 funds under section 319(h) and will not award separate grants under section 319(i), grants for protecting ground water quality... Ground-water protection projects and activities will continue to be funded under section 319(h).
2. Expedited Schedule
In FY 1994 and 1995, EPA and the States gradually expedited the section 319 grants award schedule to provide for awarding the grants by February 1. This guidance further expedites this schedule over FY 1997 and 1998. By FY 1998 at the latest, the schedule will provide for award of the grants by October 1,
' --..
thus making the 319 award date compatible with the October 1 date used to award water pollution control grants to States under sections 106 and 604(b) ofthe CWA The schedules for FY 1997 and for FY 1998 and beyond are presented in Appendix D.
A primary advantage offurther expediting the section 319(h) grant award process is to bring section 319 grants into a cycle consistent with other State grant programs for water, especially funding under sections 106 and 604(b) ofthe Clean Water Act. These grant programs initiate planning in the Spring based on the President's budget request for the next fiscal year. Several other advantages for expediting the 319(h) grant award schedule include:
ability to use grant funds in the same year in which they were appropriated; avoiding missing an entire construction season and/or cropping season; and

.>fl4

9/4/984:31 PM

Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidance, Section IV: Grants

http:ttwww.epa.gov;owow;N?S;npsguid2..htn

maintaining momentum and enthusiasm for implementation projects at the local level.
A few States may determine that it is in their best interest or infeasible not to combine section 319 and other grants and not to expedite their grants award schedules. In that case, the Region and State may agree on a different schedule, but in every case, this different schedule should be based on an open, collaborative discussion and be based on the needs ofthe State.
In all cases, Federal funds need to be put to work expeditiously, so States are strongly encouraged to expedite award schedules.
3. Six-Step Process
The following process will generally be used to award all section 319 grants. However, Nonpoint Source Enhanced Benefits States will be accorded priority for negotiating multi-year work plans, which will further reduce administrative costs for those States. (Note: Please see Aggendix D for the schedules for this six-steg grocess.)
Step 1: EPA provides a planning target to each State.
Step 2: States submit draft grant applications, including a draft work plan.
Each State will submit a draft grant application, including a draft work plan. As part ofthe draft work plan, each State should submit a brief (3-4 paragraph) introductory narrative explaining the State's strategy for using section 319 funds in the current fiscal year.
Each Region will work closely and collaboratively with each State at this stage to promote the development and submission of high-quality work plans that: (1) conform to all applicable legal requirements of section 319, 40 CFR Part 31, and 40 CFR Part 35, Subpart A, and the requirements of O:MB Circulars A-87, A-102, and A-110; and (2) are consistent with the goals, objectives and priorities in the State nonpoint source management program.
Work plans should briefly but clearly describe each significant category of activity (e.g., 2 pages) each, the funding to be used to accomplish each activity, the roles ofvarious local, State and Federal partners in completing each activity, and the outputs to be produced by performance ofthe activity. This will not only assure that the State and EPA have shared expectations, but will also assure that the State's subsequent performance can be assessed objectively. Outputs for activities should always be quantified, as described below in Section IV-C and Appendix B.
Work programs for lengthy projects (i.e., multi-year projects) should include both interim milestones and final dates for completion of activities. Interim milestones should be sufficiently frequent to assure timely performance throughout the project period, so that the State can identifY problems and correct them expeditiously.
EPA is committed to providing States great flexibility in determining their own priorities and methods for choosing and implementing watershed projects. Therefore, EPA is reducing its request for specific information about watershed projects to the minimum that is needed by EPA to: (1) carry out its legal fiduciary responsibilities of(a) determining that expenditures are necessary, eligible, and reasonable and (b) tracking expenditures and rates of expenditures to assure that they are consistent with the grant, and (2) assure that the State and EPA will mutually be able to assess the success of grant activities in meeting State program goals.

2of 14

0 9/4/98 4:31

""'lOint Source Program and Grants Guidance, Section N: Grants

http://www .epa.gov/owow1NPSmpsguici2.html

Therefore, for significant watershed projects (those whose costs exceed $50,000), the State should submit a brief(e.g., 2-3 page) synopsis ofits watershed implementation plan. This synopsis should outline the problem to be addressed; the project's goals and objectives; the lead implementing agency and other agencies that will be authorized to expend project funds; the types of measures or practices that will be implemented; the projected implementation schedule; and the environmental indicators and/or other performance measures that will be used to evaluate the success ofthe project. (Appendix C contains more information on these elements ofwell-designed watershed implementation plans.)
Step 3: Regions conduct their reviews of State applications
The Region will review each State's application and meet or conduct a telephone conversation with each State to resolve any technical or administrative issues. Following this collaboration, Regions should provide a written reply to the State. The Regional response should include written comments on the State's application, paying particular attention to applicable legal requirements and its consistency with the goals, objectives, and priorities established in the State management program. The written reply should also include any agreements reached with States concerning additional steps the State will take to become a Nonpoint Source Enhanced Benefits State.
For Nonpoint Source Enhanced Benefits States, the scope ofEPA Regional reviews of grant applications will be as limited as possible, and be highly deferential to State judgements, priorities, and chosen means ofimplementation. For Enhanced Benefits States, EPA's review ofthe section 319 nonpoint source grant applications will focus primarily on assuring that it meets legal minimums and that it does not contain significant errors.
Step 4: States submit final work plans and grant applications to EPA Regions
Step 5: Regions award grants
Each Region will review its States' final work plans. Ifa State's work programs meet all applicable requirements, the Region will award the final grant as quickly as possible. Where issues remain, the Region will elevate discussions to more senior management levels quickly to achieve a satisfactory resolution of the problem. In the unlikely event that funds cannot be fully awarded to a particular State, they must be returned to the Region for reallocation by August I ofthe fiscal year for which funds are appropriated.
Step 6: States obligate funds
States will obligate the awarded funds as quickly as possible and conduct funded activities according to the schedules in approved work plan. EPA has interpreted section 319(h)(6) to provide that section 319(h) funds granted to a State shall remain available for obligation by the State for one year from the grant award. For example, grant funds awarded to a State on December 1, 1996, remain available for obligation until December 1, 1997. The amount of any such funds that cannot be obligated by one year from the grant award shall be available to EPA for granting to other States. Regions should include grant condition language calling for the grant recipient to award all proposed contracts and interagency agreements within one year after the grant award.
The term "obligate" does not mean to "expend." It means that the State must commit the section 319(h) funds to be expended. EPA defines an "obligation (by a recipient)" as "the amount offunds which a recipient legally earmarks for expenditure through orders placed, payrolls, subagreements awarded, travel

" 14

9/4/98 4:31 PM

Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidance, Section IV: Grants

authorizations, and other transactions. 11

4. Multi-Year Work Plans

EPA will place high priority upon developing multi-year work plans for section 319 grants for Nonpoint Source Enhanced Benefits States. For example, the State may wish to present a three-year work plan which would guide the State's grant activities for the next three years. This work plan, when approved by EPA, would not have to be resubmitted and reapproved except to the extent that the State wishes to change it to address new circumstances. This approach will reduce paper work and will improve the State's ability to engage in long-term planning and implementation with respect to both programmatic activities and specific watershed projects. These Enhanced Benefits States will, however retain the option of developing aspects oftheir programs or projects on an annual basis where it deems appropriate.

States which have not been recognized as Nonpoint Source Benefits States may also work with EPA to develop multi-year work plans for certain components oftheir grants. However, until a State is recognized as a Enhanced Benefits State, it is likely that most ofits activities will require a more careful evaluation by EPA and that a new grant work plan will be required for the coming year.

5. "M Account" Funds and Transfer of Funds Between Projects

Section 319 funds appropriated in FY 1990, FY 1991, and FY 1992 are subject to restrictions (often referred to as "M account" restrictions) which automatically cause these appropriations to expire seven years after the date of appropriation. Any unspent funds remain in the U.S. Treasury and are no longer available to EPA or the State. States and EPA Regions should take the necessary actions to be sure unspent funds from these years are transferred to other projects before expiration (e.g., for FY 1990 funds, before September 30, 1996).

To increase rates of expenditure of older funds such as "M Account" funds and to reduce paperwork requirements, some States have suggested that the process for transferring funds between projects funded in different years be simplified and streamlined. EPA is exploring whether necessary modifications to allow such transfers could and should be made. Supplementary guidance may be issued on this subject in the future.

B. Grant Eligibility

Section 319 grant funds are to be directed towards the vision that all States implement dynamic and effective programs designed to achieve and maintain beneficial uses ofwater. Approved State nonpoint source management programs provide the framework for determining what activities are eligible for funding under section 319(h). Therefore, States may use section 319 funds for nonregulatory or regulatory programs for enforcement, technical assistance, financial assistance, education, training, technology transfer, demonstration projects, and monitoring to assess the success of specific nonpoint source implementation projects.

1. Revising Management Programs and Assessments

In addition to the eligible activities listed above, States may use section 319 funds to update and refocus

their State nonpoint source management programs and nonpoint source assessments to improve program

effectiveness. To assist States in these efforts, States may use up to 20 percent of their section 319(h)

funds or $250,000, whichever is less, to update and refine their programs and assessments.

,

4ofl4

l 9/4/984~

onpoint Source Program and Grants Guidance, Section IV: Grants

h t t p : i t w w w.epa.gov,owow/NP Smpsguid2.hunl

In refining their programs to reflect the most pressing needs and highest-priority water quality problems in the State, States may need to carry out additional activities and analyses. Based on the key elements of State programs that are described in the preceding section ofthis guidance, program revisions that may be supported with section 319 grants include: establishing appropriate indicator and milestones to gauge program progress; developing total maximum daily loads and other watershed-scale strategies to reduce nonpoint source pollution; focusing on determination ofthe most effective measures and practices to abate or prevent nonpoint pollution; strengthening links with Federal land management agencies; developing enhanced processes to involve public, private, and Federal partners in the design and implementation of State nonpoint source management programs; and instituting systems to assess program effectiveness and make appropriate revisions.
In addition, States may need to carry out a number of activities that have generally been associated with nonpoint source assessments. For example, States may require additional assessment work either as part of specific watershed projects, or as part of an overall Statewide, regional, or ecoregional effort. Such additional assessment work will enable States to more clearly identify and prioritize their nonpoint source problems, evaluate the effectiveness of their nonpoint source management programs, and measure progress toward environmental goals.
2. Ground-Water Activities
Ground-water activities are eligible for section 319{h) grants to the extent that they are identified directly in the State's nonpoint source management program or through incorporation in the management program by reference to the State's Ground-Water Protection Strategy or Comprehensive State Ground-Water Protection Program. If such activities are not currently included in the State's nonpoint source management program, the program should be amended to include them.
3. Urban Storm Water Runoff
Section 3 19 funds may be used to fund any urban storm water activities that are not specifically required by a draft or final NPDES permit. EPA has issued several regulations defining what activities are subject to the NPDES permit requirements of section 402(p)(2) ofthe CWA. The most significant ofthese was the publication of permit application requirements in November 1990 for "Phase I" storm water dischargers, that is, municipal separate storm sewers serving large or medium-sized populations (greater than 250,000 or 100,000 people, respectively), and storm water discharges associated with industrial activity. See 55 FR 47990.
EPA is currently in the process of determining what storm water discharges will be covered by "Phase II" ofthe storm water program. Until EPA issues regulations specifying what additional storm water discharges are subject to NPDES permit application requirements, States may use section 319(h) funds for those urban storm water discharges that are not addressed by existing, Phase I storm water program requirements. These include both Phase IT discharges as well as aspects ofPhase I activities that support but do not directly implement activities required by Phase I permits.
EPA and the States recognize the benefits of integrating nonpoint source funds and storm water activities as much as is legally allowable. Listed below are a variety ofurban runoff management activities that could be eligible for section 319(h) funding.
Technical assistance to State and local storm water programs; Monitoring needed to design and evaluate the effectiveness of implementation strategies; Best management practices for pollution prevention and runoff control (except for BMPs required

..n 4

9/4/984:31 PM

Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidance, Section IV: Grants

http:1twww.epa..gov, owow;}...;? :::.:npsg,uc.....n:.

by a draft or finalNPDES permit); Information and education programs; Technology transfer and training; and Development and implementation of regulations, policies, and local ordinances to address storm
water runoff (These may apply to areas covered by NPDES permits, provided that the regulations, policies and ordinances apply to non-permitted areas as well.)
Historically, urban storm water management control efforts have focused on water drainage problems i.e., water quantity. Now many storm water control BMPs are designed to control both water quantity and water quality. Section 319(h) funds may be used to assist in the incremental funding of certain water quality components of such practices, except as described below.
Section 319(h) nonpoint source control funds may not be used to implement specific requirements of draft or final NPDES storm water permits, nor to implement permit application requirements ofEPA's storm water regulations. For example, section 319(h) funds may not be used to meet permit application requirements such as mapping storm water systems, identifying illicit connections, characterizing storm water discharges, or monitoring required by permits. Section 319(h) grant funds may not be used to pay for BMPs or "end of pipe" treatments which are required as part of a draft or final NPDES permit.
These prohibitions are based on the statutory limitations on the use of section 319 funds, including Congressional intent that these funds be used to address nonpoint sources, rather than permitted point sources. Congress determined that permitted point sources (other than publicly owned treatment works that obtained construction grants under section 212 ofthe CWA) would generally comply with NPDES permit requirements without Federal financial assistance.
4. Abandoned Mine Lands
As in the case of urban storm water regulated by NPDES permits, many abandoned mine land reclamation projects that are designed to protect water quality are eligible for section 319 funding, except section 319 funds may not be used to implement specific requirements in a draft or final NPDES permit. For example, section 319 funds cannot be used to build treatment systems required by an NPDES permit for an inactive mine, but they may be used to fund a variety of other remediation activities at the same mine. Examples of fundable activities include:
Remediation of water pollution from abandoned mines that have not yet been issued a draft or final permit;
Remediation of water pollution from portions of abandoned mine sites that are not covered by a draft or final permit;
Mapping and planning remediation at abandoned mine land sites; Monitoring needed to design and evaluate the effectiveness of implementation strategies; Technical assistance to State and local abandoned mine land programs; Information and education programs; Technology transfer and training; and Development and implementation of policies to address abandoned mine lands.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service and local soil conservation districts have a vast array of on-the-ground experience in the area of rural abandoned mine lands. In addition, the Office of Surface Mining has a 10% set-aside from its Abandoned Mine Land program to address water quality from abandoned mines.

6 of 14

9/4/984: 'l

-.,int Source Program and Grants Guidance, Section IV: Grants

hnp:/iwww.epa.govJowow;NPS:npsguld::.nllru

5. Lake Protection and Restoration Activities
Lake protection and restoration activities are eligible for funding under Section 319(h) to the same extent, and subject to the same criteria, as activities to protect and restore other types of waterbodies from nonpoint source pollution. States are encouraged to use Section 319 funding for eligible activities that might have been funded in previous years under Section 314 ofthe Clean Water Act. However, Section 319 funds should not be used for in-lake work, such as aquatic macrophyte harvesting or dredging, unless the.sources of pollution have been addressed sufficiently to assure that the pollution being remediated will not recur.
C. Criteria That Apply to the Award of Section 319 Grants
Section 319 grants must meet certain statutory, regulatory and other administrative criteria that have been established to assure that section 319 funds are used in a fiscally prudent manner. All section 319 grants must be consistent with applicable provisions ofEPA's general grant regulations, 40 CFR Part 31, Part 35 Subpart A, and the Agency's guidance on Performance Partnership Grants. The most important of these criteria are discussed below.
1. The Work Plan Must Demonstrate That Each Funded Element Will Implement Specific Activities Identified in the Approved Management Program
Section 319(h) of the CWA provides that section 319(h) grants are to be made "for the purpose of assisting the State in implementing such management program." The grant work program must therefore "implement" the approved nonpoint source management program; each funded program activity or project will in fact lead to accomplishment of identified management program objectives. Grant work plans should link the funded activities or projects to the relevant element or elements of the States nonpoint source management program. (Specific ground-water protection activities that are not described in the nonpoint source management program are eligible if the activities are included in a State's Ground-Water Protection Strategy or Comprehensive Program, and the State's nonpoint source management program makes reference to these documents or programs.) Work plans should also indicate which Federal, State and local agencies are responsible for implementing each project or activity.
2. Section 319 Grants Must be Awarded as Continuing Environmental Program Grants
All section 319(h) grants should be awarded as continuing environmental program grants, consistent with '40 CFR, Part 35, Subpart A. Section 319(h) grants have some unique administrative characteristics i.e.,
multi-year vs. one-year budget and project periods, which are different from other EPA continuing environmental grant programs.
Unlike most other continuing environmental grants, section 319(h) grants are not required to be closed out annually. Regions are encouraged to award new continuing environmental program grants each year rather than to add funds to an existing State grant through amendments. This should allow for greater program accountability over the multi-year duration of these grants. The Regions must also ensure that all existing State grants are properly closed out at the conclusion of the project period.
3. The Non-Federal Share Must Be At Least 40 Percent
Section 319(h)(3) provides that the Federal share shall not exceed 60 percent of the management program implementation cost and shall be made on the condition that the non-Federal share is provided from non-Federal sources. The match need not be on an item-by-item basis, but rather. should be a single

9/4/98 4:31 PM

Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidance, Section IV: Grants

http://www.epa.govtowowtNPSinpsgu~<i2.iltrii,

figure that covers the entire non-Federal share ofthe costs for implementation activities. The non-Federal match does not need to be contributed at the time ofthe grant award but the funds must be contributed in a timely manner as needed to meet the schedules established in work plan milestones. EPA Regions must verify that grantees have satisfied the match requirements upon review and submittal of the grantee's final financial status report.
4. Section 319 May Provide Cost Sharing to Individuals Only in the Case of Demonstration Projects
Section 319(h)(7) provides that States may use section 319(h) funds to provide financial assistance to individuals only ifthe costs are related to implementing "demonstration projects." This provision indicates that Congress did not intend for section 319 funding to be used for general cost sharing to individuals to support the implementation ofB:MPs. However, this does not mean that a project may be funded only in one location. A similar approach may need to be demonstrated in many locations to indicate its widespread utility in a variety of hydro-geological and sociological settings. Moreover, projects should be demonstration in a variety of locations so that they may in fact be demonstrated meaningfully to others who may wish to avail themselves of the same approaches used in the projects.
In particular, EPA does not believe that Congress intended to preclude the funding of demonstration watershed projects that may require cost-sharing a particular practice or set of practices at a number of sites within the watershed in order to demonstrate the overall effectiveness of the adopted approach in solving the water quality problem.
To ensure widespread implementation of best management practices in a demonstration project in a high-priority watershed, States may supplement Section 319 cost-share to individuals with additional cost-share from State funds. Where such an approach is followed, the total cost-share to an individual from section 319, State and other Federal (e.g. USDA) funds must not exceed 100% ofthe total cost of the practice and be in compliance with all other applicable funding requirements.
5. States Must Maintain their Level of Effort
Section 319(h)(9) of the CWA requires any State applying for section 319 grants to establish and maintain its aggregate annual level of State nonpoint source pollution control expenditures for improving water quality at the average level of such expenditures in FY 1985 and 1986. This is referred to as the State's "Maintenance ofEffort" (MOE) requirement. States should establish their FY 1985 and 1986level and annual levels based on expenditures by the lead State agency or agencies responsible for the State's nonpoint source pollution control activities. Federal funds may not be included in calculating the MOE base level.
Calculation of expenditures is based on activities ofthe State lead nonpoint source agency or agencies responsible for the State's nonpoint source pollution control activities, not on what might be termed related activities of other State agencies with primary missions other than nonpoint source control. For example, ifthe State water quality agency and agricultural agency both have specific nonpoint source 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 also should be included in a State's MOE.
The MOE base level or annual level cannot include the MOE or matching expenditures for other Federal programs, such as sections 106, 319, 2050)(5), 314, and 117.
Determination ofwhether 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.

8ofl4

9/4/98 4:311 1;,

- "'int Source Program and Grants Guidance, Section IV: Grants

http://www.epa.gov/owow!NPS/npsguid2.btml

(The State will report whether it has met its MOE requirements in its final Financial Status Report at the end ofthe budget year.)
See memorandum Nonpoint Source FY-88-39, issued by EPA's Office ofWater on July 12, 1988 for additional guidance regarding MOEs.
6. Administrative Costs Funded by Section 319 Funds May Not Exceed 10% of the Grant Award
Pursuant to section 319(h)(l2), administrative costs in the form ofsalaries, overhead, or indirect costs for services provided and charged against activities and programs carried out with the grant shall not exceed 10 percent of the grant award. The costs of implementing enforcement and regulatory activities, education, training, technical assistance, demonstration projects, and technology transfer are not subject to this limitation.
7. The State Must Demonstrate Satisfactorv Progress
Section 319(h)(8) provides that no section 319 grant may be made unless EPA determines that the State has made satisfactory progress during the previous fiscal year in meeting the schedule of milestones specified by the State in its nonpoint source management program. The Region will determine, based on review of annual reports, other documents and discussions with the State, whether the State's progress for the previous fiscal year was satisfactory.
D. Reporting Requirements to be Included in all Grants
All section 319(h) grants are subject to EPA's general grant regulations, 40 CFR Parts 31 and 35, which specifY a variety ofbasic grant reporting requirements for awarding grants to States and localities. The unified grant regulations, 40 CFR Part 31.40 in particular, outline a range of administrative reporting requirements, including performance and financial reports.
Section 319(h) contains additional provisions relating to reporting. These include: (I) section 319(h)(l0), which authorizes EPA to request information, data and reports as necessary to determine a State's continuing eligibility to receive section 319 grants; and (2) section 319(h){ll), which requires States to report annually on their progress in meeting milestones, and to report available information on reductions of nonpoint source pollutant loadings and on improvements to water quality resulting from implementation of nonpoint source management programs.
Regions and States should work together to assure that appropriate reporting requirements are incorporated into each grant, either through specific grant conditions, or within the actual work program document (see Appendix F for generic grant condition language. The specific reporting requirements reflected in that language are discussed immediately below). The Regions and States are encouraged to assess the effectiveness of the reporting process and determine annually if adjustments or modifications are necessary and mutually beneficial.
In general, reporting should be sufficiently detailed to enable a reviewer to ascertain whether outputs and milestones are being achieved on schedule, to identify any problems that may be developing in carrying out tasks in the grant work plan, to identifY corrective actions to address such problems expeditiously, and to adequately account for all Federal funds expended.
1. Basic Reporting Requirements

9/4/98 4:31 PM

Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidance, Section IV: Grants

http://www.epa.gov/owow/NPS/npsguid2)t:J

Recipients offunds awarded under section 319(h) ofthe CWA are required by applicable laws and regulations to provide information to EPA under the following reporting categories described below: (a) performance reports; (b) nonpoint source program progress grant reports; and (c) financial status reports.
Grantee Performance Reports. 40 CFR section 31.40(b)(1) requires States to submit performance reports on the status of section 319(h) grants. In general, States should submit these reports on a semi-annual basis by a date agreed to by the Region and the State. An abbreviated two or three page report per grant should generally suffice to meet this requirement. Nonpoint Source Enhanced Benefits States should submit performance reports only once per year.
In addition, final reports are due 90 days after the expiration or termination ofgrant support, pursuant to 40 CFRPart 31.
Performance reports should include at a minimum:
Performance/Milestone Summary: A listing of major program and project accomplishments for the
period (based on the project and program milestones or commitments contained within approved
work plans, grant agreements, or special conditions/agreements), as well as progress made toward meeting future milestones. (The State may accomplish some or all ofthis reporting requirement through its annual report discussed below.) Slippage Reports: Provide reasons for delays in meeting scheduled milestones/commitments and discuss what actions (State, Federal or other) will be taken to resolve any current or anticipated problems. Additional pertinent information including, when appropriate, analysis and explanation of cost overruns, unanticipated events/consequences, etc.
Nonpoint Source Progress Reports. Section 319(h)(Il) ofthe CWA requires States to report annually on progress in meeting nonpoint source management program milestones, and report available information on reductions in nonpoint source loadings and on improvements in water quality resulting from program implementation. EPA suggests that this information be provided in the following streamlined format:
I. A brief summary of progress in meeting approved milestones and the near- and long-term objectives identified in the State nonpoint source management program..
2. A matrix displaying milestones from the current year for the approved State program with the following information for each milestone:
a. Applicable project or program
b. Scheduled project completion date
c. Percent completed
3. A discussion ofthe extent to which Federal agencies, lands and activities within the State are supporting the State in meeting approved milestones.
4. To the extent information is available, reductions in nonpoint source loadings achieved.
5. To the extent information is available, the amount of improvement in water quality (including aquatic

10 of 14

914198 4:31 t'r

~int Source Program and Grants Guidance, Section IV: Grants

http://www.epa.goviowowtNPS1npsguid2.html

habitat quality) as the result ofnonpoint source program activity.
6. Where information is not yet available under items 4 and 5 above for waters or watersheds where implementation is being assisted, surrogate measures of environmental progress (such as environmental indicators) should be used and progress should be reported in terms ofthe degree or percentage of completion ofthe project.
In the past, some States have chosen to include additional information in their annual report, using the report as a means of assessing progress to date and the need to modify the program; providing case studies of particular projects; and conveying information to a broader audience on the activities being conducted by the State. States may continue to include such additional information, as a supplement to the basic information required by law. States may wish to include the following types of information in their reports:
1. Listing offurther actions necessary to achieve CWA goals, including any recommendations for future EPA programs to control nonpoint source pollution.
2. Briefcase studies of any particularly successful nonpoint source control efforts. (In November 1994, EPA published Section 319 Success Stories, providing information on the effectiveness of a variety of State programs and projects in each State. EPA intends to continue to publish success stories periodically to help broaden public understanding of the accomplishment ofthis program. States that choose to include success stories in their annual reports would thereby assist EPA in this effort.)
3. Slippage reports providing reasons for delays in meeting scheduled milestones.
4. Information on increases in public awareness ofnonpoint source pollution and public involvement in addressing it.
5. Copies of products produced by the State program (e.g., outreach materials or BMP documents).
Financial Status Reports. 40 CFR Section 31.41(b) requires grantees to submit financial status reports using Standard Form 269 or 269(a) to report the status of:funds under each grant. In general, financial status reports should be required semi-annually. In the case ofNonpoint Source Enhanced Benefits States, financial status reports should be required only annually. Final financial status reports are due within 90 days after the expiration or termination of the grant agreement.
2. Reporting Procedures and GRTS
EPA has developed a computerized system, the Section 319 Grant Reporting and Tracking System (GRTS), for use by States and EPA in managing and reporting data on section 319 grants. GRTS provides States with the capability to efficiently fulfill grant reporting requirements and provides a database of nonpoint source program information which can be used to enhance State, Regional, and national understanding of nonpoint source projects and programs.
Regions are encouraged to work with their States to design reporting procedures utilizing GRTS that will promote efficiency and eliminate duplication of work. In particular, States are encouraged to use GRTS to submit grantee performance reports pursuant to 40 CFR 31.40(b)(1). States are also encouraged to use GRTS' project description, project evaluation, and other data fields for more complete data management and project reporting purposes. In addition, the Regions should explore ways to coordinate and synchronize the submittal of performance reports of other EPA programs managed within the same

ofi4

914198 4:31 PM

Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidance, Section IV: Grants

http://www.epa.gov/owow/NPS/npsguid2.htnl

State office, e.g., section 106, 104{b), 305(b) and 604(b).

States are reguired to use GRTS to report the specific nationally mandated data elements listed in Appendix F. These consist ofthe bare minimum of information needed by EPA to track State grant implementation nationally and to respond to inquires from constituent groups, OMB, and Congress. However, these nationally mandated data elements may be reviewed and individually negotiated by EPA and a State as a part of the National Environmental Performance Partnership System and as a part of a Performance Partnership Grant.

The GRTS system currently contains four basic levels ofgrantee information:

(1) basic information such as grantee name, grant amount, date ofaward and amount of matching State funds;

(2) project descriptions, schedules, and individual project costs;

(3) project milestone data comparing proposed schedules with actual events; and

(4) sub-milestones which further delineate milestone information.

Since GRTS is an official reporting vehicle for programs or projects conducted by States under section 319(h) grants, its implementation is itself eligible for funding under section 319. Regions and States should work together to ensure that the States are provided sufficient resources in their 319 grants to meet these reporting requirements and management support needs. Examples of GRTS system support needs include: providing adequate staff support; purchasing of necessary ADP equipment, materials, and supplies; EPA mainframe access capability; and attending GRTS system conferences and training.

3. Reporting and Record keeping for Sub-State Organizations

Just as the grant agreement specifies outputs and milestones to be achieved by the States, States should assure that agreements with sub-State organizations specifY outputs, milestones, and reporting and record keeping requirements in memoranda of agreement," contracts or other appropriate documents.

Where a sub-grantee will be providing a portion of the State's match, the State should ensure that adequate records are kept with respect to that portion. 40 CFR Section 31.41(a)(2) specifies that grantees shall not impose more burdensome requirements on sub-grantees than they are subject to themselves.

V. MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF SECTION 319(h) GRANTS

As part of its improvement ofboth the 319 grants program and other EPA grants programs, EPA will use a differential oversight approach that reduces oversight for Nonpoint Source Enhanced Benefits States and focuses attention and assistance on other States. In all cases, EPA's approach will emphasize cooperative partnerships based upon EPA's and States' mutual goal of implementing dynamic and effective national nonpoint source programs designed to achieve and maintain beneficial uses of water.

m Regions should strive to use uniform approaches conducting their evaluations of State programs,
progress and problems. To assist Regions in preparing for and conducting their State program reviews, Appendix A contains an outline of evaluation criteria that may be considered by Regions and States in conducting the reviews. Regions should provide a written outline to States at least thirty days in advance

,-)

12 ofl4

9/4/98 4:31 P.J

- 'JOint Source Program and Grants Guidance, Section IV: Grants

http://www.epa.gov/owow!NPS/npsguid2.html

of any States program evaluation. States are encouraged, but are not required, to provide written responses to the Regions in advance ofthe reviews.
For Nonpoint Source Enhanced Benefits States, EPA will rely primarily on the State's own self-assessment, based on the outline presented in Appendix A and supported by the various reports outlined in Section IV-D above. EPA will review the self-assessment and State reports, and then contact the States ifEPA desires additional information. EPA will afford substantially reduced oversight and maximum flexibility to a Nonpoint Source Enhanced Benefits State, whether or not the State has chosen to join the National Environmental Performance Partnership System or to seek a Performance Partnership Grant.
For all other States, in addition to reviewing the State's reports, EPA will meet with the State at least annually to discuss the State's progress in implementing its program. Appendix A will be used as a basis for evaluating the progress made by the State in reviewing, upgrading, and implementing its nonpoint source management program. EPA and the State will also discuss ways in which EPA can better assist the State during the forthcoming year in implementing the State's program. Types of assistance to be considered include support for State efforts to assess water quality problems; support for State design and implementation ofwatershed projects; technical assistance to help the State monitor the progress and results of watershed projects; and assistance in the development of outreach tools. Subsequent to its annual meeting, EPA will produce a report, with State input and review, that assesses the progress and problems experienced by the State in implementing its program during the preceding year. This assessment will also include EPA's evaluation of the State's progress towards becoming a Nonpoint Source Enhanced Benefits State.
When evaluation results show that grant and contract provisions have not been substantially achieved, the State and Region should work cooperatively to take corrective action. If performance by the State is poor, the Region may be required to determine that the State has not made "satisfactory progress" under section 319(h)(8) and to deny the State's grant application the following year. Other forms of corrective action are described at 40 CFR 31.43.
Where a State lead nonpoint source agency is providing EPA grant funds to other State or local agencies to carry out the terms of a nonpoint source grant, the lead agency remains responsible for all outputs in its section 319(h) work program. Thus, if a local agency has difficulties performing particular funded activities, the Region should work with the State lead agency to resolve the problem.
VI. GRANTS TO INDIAN TRIBES
This guidance is not specifically directed to Tribal nonpoint source management programs, however, but with the agreement ofEPA and the eligible Tribe this guidance may be used for administering section 319 programs and grants. Alternatively, A Tribal Guide to the State Section 319 Nonpoint Source Management Program (USEPA, Office ofWater, September 1994) may be used.
Section 518(f) states that the Administrator may reserve for Indian Tribes treated as States not more than one-third of one percent of the amount appropriated for any fiscal year under section 3190) for section 319(h) and (I). EPA intends to continue to make one-third of one percent of each appropriation available for 319(h) grants to Tribes.
To be eligible for such grants, Tribes must meet the requirements in section 518(e) ofthe Clean Water Act, 40 CFR 130.6(d) and 130.15, as well as applicable provisions of 40 CFR Part 35. A succinct
explanation of the new streamlined approach for Tribes to be treated in substantially the same manner as

ofl4

9/4/984:31 PM

Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidance. Section IV: Grants

http://www.epa.gov/owow/NPS/npsguid2,htr

States are treated for purposes of obtaining various types of:financial assistance is presented in 59 FR 13814-18 (March 23, 1994). A step-by-step guide for Tribes seeking section 319 grants is presented in A Tribal Guide to the Section 319(h) Nonpoint Source Grant Program (EPA 841-S-94-003, September 1994).
Tribes, like States must have EPA approved nonpoint source assessments and management programs in order to be eligible for section 319(h) grants. Though all portions of the assessment must be completed in order to be approved by EPA, the Agency may approve a portion of a Tribes' management program. Once a portion is approved, a section 319(h) grant can be awarded for those portions ofthe management program that have been approved by the Agency. EPA encourages Tribes that are currently unable to develop complete nonpoint source management programs, to focus on their highest priority nonpoint source problems and develop approvable portions ofnonpoint source programs to address those problems. In addition, sections 106 and 104(b)(3) funds are available to Tribes for developing assessment reports; section 106 funds may also be used to develop management programs. Technical assistance with the development of assessment and management programs is available from EPA.
Indian Tribes are required to meet the matching and maintenance-of-effort requirements under section 319(h); however, if a Tribe can demonstrate financial cause, the Federal share of319(h) funds can be increased to 90 percent. In addition, Tribes may use in-kind contributions to meet matching requirements.
Continue to Section VII. Appendices
Table ofContents

~NPS Homepage

EPA HOMEPAGE I OWOW HOME ISEARCH ICOMMENTS
Environmental Protec:tion Agency's Office ofWetlands, Oceans, & Watersheds
Revised December 30, 1997 URL: http://www.epa.gov/OWOWINPS/npsguid2.btml

14 of 14

9/4/98 4:31 ~.''

-'=lldix A: Suggested Outline for Assessments of State Programs

http://www.epa.gov/owow/NPS/npsguid3.html

APPENDIX A
SUGGESTED OUTLINE FOR ASSESSMENTS OF STATE PROGRAMS
The following suggested outline is designed for use by States and EPA Regional offices in evaluating the progress being made by States in reviewing, updating, revising, and implementing their State nonpoint source programs. The outline reflects the nine key program elements of successful State programs presented in Section ill-A of this Guidance. The outline below breaks these elements down into component parts that will assist reviewers in evaluating State program effectiveness in achieving these nine program elements.
This outline may be used as a guide by Nonpoint Source Enhanced Benefits States for their self-assessments (see Section IV-A ofthis guidance} and by any other State that chooses to conduct a self-assessment, as well as by EPA Regions that conduct assessments of State programs. Regions and States choosing to use this outline may wish to tailor the components of particular elements to ensure that they most appropriately addresses particular regional or State needs.
1. The State program contains explicit short- and long-term goals, objectives, and strategies to protect surface and ground water.
State program includes a vision statement. State has specific long-tenn goals that are linked to its vision and are directed towards the
expeditious achievement and maintenance ofbeneficial uses ofwater. State has specific short-tenn (e.g., 1-5 year) objectives, expressed as activities, that are linked to its
goals. State has identified measures and indicators that will be used to assess the State's success in
achieving its goals and objectives. State has identified specific, expeditious milestones for its-activities. State has identified implementation steps and the expected effects ofthose steps on its water
resources.
2. The State strengthens its working partnerships and linkages with appropriate State, interstate, Tribal, regional, and local entities (including conservation districts), private sector groups, citizens groups, and Federal agencies.
The State uses a State-wide collaborative team, nonpoint source task force, or advisory group, or other appropriate process, to provide for input andrecommendations from representatives of Federal, State, interstate, Tribal, and local agencies, private sector groups and citizens groups, regarding nonpoint source program direction, project selection, and other similar aspects of program administration.
The team, task force or advisory group meets regularly and promotes collaborative and inclusive decision making.
The State program specifies procedures to provide for periodic public input into the program. The State effectively incorporates a variety of organizations and interests into its implementation of
nonpoint source activities and projects.

14

9/4/98 4:25 PM

Appendix A: Suggested Outline for Assessments of State Programs

http://www.epa.gov/owow!NPS/npsguid3.~tl

nonpoint source activities and projects. The State uses its partnerships effectively to avoid the transfer of problems among environmental
media.

3. The State uses a balanced approach that emphasizes both State-wide nonpoint source programs and on-the-ground management of individual watersheds where waters are impaired and threatened.

Annual or multi-year work plans contain nonpoint soi.n-ce implementation actions directed at both specific priority watersheds and activities ofa State-wide nature.
State tracks both State-wide activities and watershed projects. State has institutionalized its program beyond the annual implementation of319-funded activities
and projects. State uses an integrated watershed approach for assessment, protection and remediation that is well
integrated with other water or natural resource programs.

4. The State program (a) abates known water quality impairments from nonpoint source pollution! State nonpoint source programs should recognize the contribution of atmospheric deposition to nonpoint source-caused water quality problems and take general note of the success of the States' air pollution control programs in reducing atmospheric deposition. States are not expected to abate this source in the context of their NPS management programs. and (b) prevents significant threats to water quality from present and future activities.

State has comprehensively characterized water quality impairments and threats throughout the State which are caused or significantly contributed to by nonpoint sources.
State has comprehensively characterized reasonably foreseeable water quality impairments and threats that are likely to be caused by nonpoint source pollution in the future.
State program addresses all significant nonpoint source categories and subcategories. State program has identified specific programs to abate pollution from categories ofnonpoint
sources which cause or substantially contribute to the impairments identified in its assessments. State has identified specific programs to prevent future water quality impairments and threats that
are likely to be caused by nonpoint source pollution.

5. The State program identifies waters and their watersheds impaired by nonpoint source pollution and identifies important unimpaired waters that are threatened or otherwise at risk. Further, the State establishes a process to progressively address these identified waters by conducting more detailed watershed assessments and developing watershed implementation plans, and then by implementing the plans.

State water quality assessments (including those performed under section 305(b), 319(a), 303(d), 314, and others}, along with analysis of changing land uses within the State, form the basis for the identification ofthe State's planned nonpoint source activities and projects.
State activities focus on remediating the identified impairments and threats, and on protecting the identified at-risk waters.
State has provided for public participation in the overall identification ofproblems to be addressed in the State program, and in the establishment of a process to progressively address these problems.
State nonpoint source prioriti~s are communicated to, consistent with, and reflected in program planning and implementation activities by other water resource management agencies operating within the State.
State revises its identification ofwaters and revisits its process for progressively addressing these problems periodically (e.g., once every 5 years).

2ofl4

9/4/98 4:25 }1

'CIIdix A: Suggested Outline for Assessments of State Programs

6. The State reviews, upgrades, and implements all program components required by section 319(b) of the Clean Water Act, and establishes flexible, targeted, and iterative approaches to achieve and maintain beneficial uses of water as expeditiously as practicable. The State programs include:
(a) An mix of water quality-based and/or technology-based programs designed to achieve and maintain beneficial uses of water; and
(b) A mix of regulatory, non-regulatory, financial and technical assistance as needed to achieve and maintain beneficial uses of water as expeditiously as practicable.
The State includes in its program and implements the following eight items:
Identification of the measures to be used to control nonpoint sources ofpollution, focusing on those measures which will be most effective to address the specific types of nonpoint source pollution prevalent within the State. These measures may be individually identified or presented in manuals or compendiums, provided that they are specific and are related to the category or subcategory of nonpoint sources. They may also be identified as part of a watershed approach towards achieving water quality standards, whether locally, within a watershed, or State-wide;
Identification of programs to achieve implementation ofthe measures; Processes used to coordinate and, where appropriate, integrate various programs used to
implement nonpoirit source controls in the State; A schedule with goals, objectives, and annual milestones for program implementation; legal
authorities to implement the program; available resources; and institutional relationships; Attorney General certification (if program is changed substantially); Sources of funding from Federal (other than 319), State, local, and private sources; Identification ofFederal programs and projects that the State will review for their effects on water
quality and their consistency with the State program; and Monitoring and other evaluation programs to help determine short- and long-term program
effectiveness.
The State program also incorporates or cross-references existing baseline requirements established by other applicable Federal or State laws to the extent that they are relevant. Examples include but are not limited to:
Approved State coastal nonpoint source pollution programs required by section 621 7 ofthe Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA);
State Forest Management Practices Acts; State construction, erosion or nutrient management laws; and Federal or State transportation laws which govern construction site or maintenance pollution
runoff
7. The State identifies Federal lands and activities which are not managed consistently with State nonpoint source program objectives. Where appropriate, the State seeks EPA assistance to help resolve issues.
The State reviews Federal financial assistance programs; development projects, and other activities that may result in nonpoint source pollution for consistency with the State program.
The State works with Federal agencies to resolve potential inconsistencies between Federal programs and activities and the State programs.

-,of 14

9/4/98 4:25 PM

Appendix A: Suggested Outline for Assessments of State Programs

http://www.epa.gov/owow1NPS/npsguid3.b1

programs and activities and the State programs. Where the State cannot resolve Federal consistency issues to its satisfaction, it requests EPA
assistance to help resolve the issues. The State coordinates with Federal agencies to promote consistent activities and programs, and to
develop and implement joint or complementary activities and programs.

8. The State manages and implements its nonpoint source program efficiently and effectively, including necessary financial management.

The State's plans for watershed projects and State-wide activities are well-designed, with sufficient detail to assure effective implementation.
The State's watershed projects focus on the critical areas, and critical sources within those areas, that are contributing to nonpoint source problems.
State implements its activities and projects, including all tasks and outputs, in a timely manner. State has established systems to assure that the State meets its reporting obligations. State utilizes the Grants Tracking and Reporting System effectively. State has developed and uses a fiscal accounting system capable oftracking expenditures of both
319 funds and non-Federal match. Nonpoint source projects include appropriate monitoring and/or environmental indicators to gauge
effectiveness.

9. The State periodically reviews and evaluates its nonpoint source management program using
environmental and functional measures of success, and revises its nonpoint source assessment and its manag~ment program at least every fiVe years.

The State has and uses a process to periodically assess both improvements in water quality and new impairments or threats.
The State uses a feedback loop, based on monitoring and other evaluative information, to assess the effectiveness of the program in meeting its goals and objectives, and revises its activities and tailors its annual work plans, as appropriate, in light of its review.
Using its feedback loop, the State periodically reviews and assesses the goals and objectives ofthe nonpoint source management program, and revises the program as appropriate in light of its reVIew.
Th~ State's annual report successfully portrays the State's progress in meeting milestones, implementing BMPs, and achieving water quality goals.

APPENDIXB

:MEASURES AND INDICATORS OF PROGRESS AND SUCCESS

To measure the progress and success oftheir nonpoint source programs, States will generally need to use at least three sets of measures. These include measures to indicate progress towards (1) the State's overall water quality vision of achieving and maintaining beneficial uses ofwater, (2) the long-term goals set by the State in its program (e.g., installing appropriate technology at all animal waste facilities that need to be upgraded, or implementing particular watershed projects) and (3) the shorter-term goals and objectives set by the State (e.g., successfully implementing a particular technology).

The following list illustrates measures and indicators which States may choose from or add that will help

the States and the public measure the progress and success oftheir programs. States may identify and use

-,

other measures and indicators that are most relevant to their nonpoint source problems, programs, and

projects. However. States must at least use the three measures ofprogress that are identified in section

4ofl4

914198 4:25 } ./

-
. ~dix A: Suggested Outline for Assessments of State Programs

http://www.epa.gov/owow/NPStnpsguid3.html

projects. However. States must at least use the three measures of progress that are identified in section 319(h)(ll). i.e.. implementation milestones. available information on reductions in nonpoint source pollutant loadings. and available information on improvements in water quality.
Further, well-designed State programs will usually include several appropriate measures and indicators from each of the categories set forth below for each oftheir projects or program activities. For overall program status and trends, States will generally include measure l.A. below as part of their section 305(b) reports.
EPA and its State, Federal and other public and private partners have adopted core indicators to report nationally to measure attainment offive specific objectives. These five objectives are preserving and enhancing public.health; preserving and enhancing ecosystem health; supporting uses designated by States and Tribes in their water quality standards; conserving or improving ambient conditions; and reducing or preventing pollutants loadings and other stressors. For nonpoint source pollution control, these five objectives are characterized by the measures and indicators presented below.

The categories below are approaches which have been successfully used as water-quality and implementation measures and indicators , as well as measures of enhanced public education, awareness and action. They are presented as examples, not requirements, and should be used as starting points for discussion.
1. Water Quality Improvement from Nonpoint Source Controls
a. Number (or percentage) of river/stream miles, lake acres, and estuarine and coastal square miles that fully support all designated beneficial uses.
b. Number (or percentage) of river/stream miles, lake acres, and estuarine and coastal square miles that come into compliance with one or more designated uses (e.g., a river segment that is neither fishable nor swimmable becomes fishable), or with one or more numeric water quality criteria (e.g., achieves a criterion for phosphorus while continuing to exceed a criterion for nitrogen).
c. Demonstrable improvements in relevant surface and ground water quality parameters.

d. Demonstrable improvements in biological or physical parameters (e.g., increase in diverse fish or macroinvertebrate populations, or improved riparian areas or other measures of habitat).

e. Opening of previously closed shellfish beds f Lifting of fish consumption advisories)

g. Prevention of new impairments (e.g., number of river miles removed from the "threatened" lists, or number of miles ofhigh-quality waters protected).
2. Nonpoint Source Pollutant Load Reduction

a. Reductions in pollutant loadings (e.g., by pounds or percentage) from nonpoint sources in impaired/threatened watersheds.
b. Reductions in pollutant loadings (e.g., by pounds or percentage) from nonpoint sources in priority watersheds identified by the State.

- 14

9/4/98 4:25 PM

Appendix A: Suggested Outline for Assessments of State Programs

hnp:nwww.epa.gov,owow;NPSnpsgul~.nm;

c. State-wide reduction in pollutant loadings from nonpoint sources.
d. In the case of nonpoint source pollution which may result from activities conducted in the future, prevention or minimization of new loadings, and/or offset ofnew loadings by reductions from existing sources.
e. Reductions in frequencies, or prevention of increases, of peak flows in developing or developed areas.
3. Implementation of Nonpoint Source Controls
a. Number of measures implemented in watersheds of impaired/threatened waters (e.g., number of on-the-ground practices implemented that reflect, for example, the "best practicable" approach to solve the identified problem.)
b. Percentages of"needed" measures implemented in watersheds of impaired/threatened waters (e.g., where watershed analysis has shown the need to implement measures at 20 sites, annual progress in implementing a watershed project can be shown by the number ofB:MPs installed.)
c. Combination of2.b and 3.b.
d. Number of approved or certified plans written to address, e.g., erosion and sediment control, storm water, nutrient management, or pest management.
e. Percent ofwatershed covered by plans described in item 3d.
f Percent of facilities covered by plans described in item 3d.
g. Statistically-based survey of implementation rates, e.g. results of State-approved BMP use and effectiveness surveys.
h. Percent of priority ground water addressed by nonpoint source controls.
4. Public Education, Awareness, and Action
a. Participation rates in education programs specifically directed to solving particular nonpoint source pollution problems.
b. Statistically-based survey of public awareness, knowledge, and action to measure changes in attitudes and action over time.
c. Participation rates in various nonpoint source activities, such as citizen monitoring and watershed resource restoration activities.
d. Participation rates in various public awareness and education efforts.
APPENDIXC
ELEMENTS OF A WELL-DESIGNED WATERSHED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
A well-designed plan for a successful watershed implementation project typically includes the following:

6ofl4

9/4/984:25

x:ndix A: Suggested Outline for Assessments of State Programs

http://www.epa.govtowow/NPS!npsguid3.hnnl

A well-designed plan for a successful watershed implementation project typically includes the following:

1. Define the Problem

Identification ofwater guality threat or problem - Information is provided on whether the water resource is threatened or its use is impaired from the nonpoint source assessment report, 303(d) list, 305(b) report, 314(a) list, or a consolidated State water quality assessment report. A State's comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program or ground water protection strategy may also be a useful sources ofinformation.
Critical areas - The approximate size and location ofthe critical areas to be treated is identified on a map and quantified. The critical areas are of an appropriate size to ensure that the measures implemented will have a significant impact on restoring or protecting designated beneficial uses within the watershed.

2. Build a Project Team and Public Support

Institutional roles and responsibilities - Roles and responsibilities of agencies active within the watershed are identified, regardless of funding source. All State, local, and Federal agencies that have potential roles to play in assisting ting in the design and implementation of the project are identified and included as appropriate in the project development and implementation process. Where possible, one agency at the local level is identified as the lead agency for the watershed project.
Information/education and public participation component - The nonpoint source watershed plan documents how interested and affected publics are or will be involved in the selection, design and implementation ofthe watershed project. Additionally the educational activities to be conducted in the watershed project are identified, including a schedule. The project also includes a plan for communicating lessons learned to other areas ofthe State through the Statewide nonpoint source information and education program.

3. Set Goals and Identify Solutions

Nonpoint source control objectives- The nonpoint source watershed plan describes what is

expected to be accomplished in a two to five year period. Objectives relate to all the identified

water quality problems, are quantitative, and make progress towards achieving implementation of

technology-based measures or achieving or maintaining State water quality standards. For example,

where water quality standards are violated and a 75 percent reduction is needed to attain/maintain

water quality standards, an objective might be to reduce fecal coliform loadings to a waterbody of

75 percent.

rz.,.

4. Implement Controls

Implementation schedule - A schedule describing the location and type ofB'MPs and programs to be implemented within the watershed and the projected time of implementation are provided within the plan. The plan also includes an estimate of the costs ofthe planned activities.

5. Measure Success

Monitoring and evaluation - Utilizing the project goals identified in the work plan, the plan should also provide an appropriate monitoring component to evaluate effectiveness, including ambient effects monitoring, beneficial use assessments, and environmental indicators (see Section TI-A of this guidance and Appendix B).

9/4/98 4:25 PM

Appendix A: Suggested Outline forAssessments of State Programs

http://www.epa.gov/owow!NPS/npsguid3.btn

APPENDIXD

SUGGESTED SCHEDULE FOR ISSUANCE OF SECTION 319(b) GRANTS

Note: The following schedules are presented as goals to accelerate the issuance ofsection 319 grants and to synchronize them with other Clean Water Act (and other Federal) grants to States. This acceleration is important not only to promote performance partnership grants and the National Environmental Performance Partnership System, but also to accelerate the draw-down ofFederalfunds in accordance with Congressional intent. Nonetheless, many practical difficulties may impede this acceleration, so EPA Regions and States may make adjustments as necessary.

I I I FY 97 FY 98 & BEYOND

~ EPA issues brief national guidance including annual planning targets
(for planning purposes the President's request level will be assumed)

Jstl/96 311

I

IStates submit draft work plans to EPA Regions

1~16/1

EPA Regions provide response to work plans

~17/8

~18/1 States submit final work plans and grant applications to EPA Regions

EPA Regions approve work plans and award grants

~110/1

APPENDIXE
GENERIC GRANT CONDffiON ESTABLISHING
STATE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
The recipient (name of State lead nonpoint source agency) agrees to comply with all reporting requirements required by EPA regulation and sections 319(h)(10) and (11) ofthe Clean Water Act. All reporting information will be submitted according to the schedule(s) required in the Parts 31 and 35 regulations and in the "National Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidance For Fiscal Year 1997 and Future Years" or as subsequently amended. The three basic reporting categories include: Gtantee Performance Reports [40 CFR, Part 31.40(b)(1)]; Nonpoint Source Progress Reports [CWA, section 319(h)(11)]; and Financial Status Reports [40 CFR, Part 31.41 (b)].
The recipient agrees to use the Agency's Grants Reporting and Tracking System (GRTS) to provide all nationally mandated data elements listed in Appendix F ofthe national nonpoint source program and grants guidance. Failure to comply with the above referenced reporting requirements may result in a disruption ofgrantee funding and/or early termination ofthe grant agreement in accordance with 40 CFR Part 31.43.
APPENDIXF
NATIONALLY MANDATED DATA ELEMENTS UNDER SECTION 319
GRANTS REPORTING AND TRACKING SYSTEM (GRTS)*

8ofl4

9/4/984:25. ,~1

-endix A: Suggested Outline for Assessments of State Programs

http://www.cpa-goviowowJNPSlnpsguici3.html

Data Element Names
NPS Program or Project Title NPS Category NPS Functional Category NPS Waterbody Type NPS Hydrologic Unit Code NPS Ground-water Code NPS Budget 319(h) Funds Number of State Employees (FTEs) by 319(h) Funds Under this Grant Amount of 319(h) Funds Allocated to Sub-State Recipients Under this Grant NPS Program or Project Start Code/Date NPS Program or Project Completion Code/Date

*Note: As described in section IV-D, States are required to use GRTS to report the specific nationally mandated data elements listed in this Appendix. These consist ofthe bare minimum of information needed by EPA to track State grant implementation nationally and to respond to inquires from constituent groups, O:MB, and Congress. However, these nationally mandated data elements may be reviewed and individually negotiated by EPA and a State as a part ofthe National Environmental Performance Partnership System and as a part ofa Performance Partnership Grant.

APPENDIXG

FACTORS IN PLANNING TARGET FORMULA

IFACTOR

II DATA SOURCE

II WEIGHTING II RATIONALE

I

I. Statutory set-aside for Indian Tribes

Sec. 106 allocation formula 0.0033

ISec. 518(!)

I

IIT. Other*

I

Minimum amount for the N/A States and Territories

0.2643

All States, D.C., and territories receive funds to institutionalize NPS control activities & programs

1988 Section 305(b) Report

1988 Draft- 10/89

N/A

National data used to determine the weighting factors for ag., urban, mining, & forestry as indicated below.

Population
I

1980 Census 1987 Census (est.) 111987 Ag Census

0.2861
II

Factors include State fraction of national population, pop'n density, and pop'n growth.
I Cropland is used as a surrogate

9/4/98 4:25 PM

Appendix A: Suggested Oudine for Assessments of State Programs

http://www.epa.gov/owowiN'"PStnpsguid3.hm

Cropland Acreage

1987 NRl data
1980 Census Data
1986 ASIWPCA NPS Report

0.1581

Pasture& Rangeland Acreage

1987 Ag Census

0.0205

Forest Harvest

Acreage

I EPA

110.0429

Wellhead Protection Areas

Wellhead Protection Program Allotment Formula-EPA

0.1135

Critical Aquatic Habitats

Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetland Losses in the United States 1970's 1980's. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

0.0500

Other Use Impact- 319(a)

N/A

N/A

Mining Pesticides

1987 NRl
1980 RCA Appraisal
1987NR1
1986 National Pesticide Usage Data Base, RFF, & EPA

0.0572 0.0074

Cropland is used as a surrogate for sediment and nutrient problems, which account for about 85% of ag NPS problems. Modeling approach based partly on 1986 ASIWPCA national data.
Animal units & animal units/farm acre used as surrogate for BOD & bacteria problems, which account for about 11% of the ag NPS
Iproblem. Acreage ofprivate & Federal forest harvested annually.
Factors include relative risk to ground water, number or people potentially impacted, number of wellheads to be protected & size of states.
State share of total wetland acreage is a meaningful surrogate for critical aquatic habitat since it covers both fresh and saline waters
All NPS factors for ag., urban, forestry & mining are based upon land-based activities, therefore addressing impaired & threatened waters.
State's fraction of mined acres as surrogate for mining.
Amount & rate of application of active ingredients for pesticides recommended for inclusion in EPA's National Pesticide Survey.

* The weighting for Other Factors is based on the allocation after National set-asides have been
subtracted from the total appropriated funds. As a result, the sum of the weighting for Other Factors is unity.
NOTE: These factors are unchanged from EPA's current formula.
APPENDIXH

10 ofl4

9/4/98 4:2: :;1

- endix A: Suggested Outline for Assessments of State Programs
APPENDIXH
SELECTED REFERENCES
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 1993. Guidance SpecifYing Management Measures for Sources ofNonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993. Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance. Washington, D.C., 82 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Information Resources Management, 1995. Grants Information and Control System Nonpoint Source Subsystem Users Manual. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofWater, Office ofWetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, August 1991. Watershed Monitoring and Reporting for Section 319 National Monitoring Projects. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofWater, Office ofWetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, 1990. Nonpoint Source Monitoring and Reporting Requirements for Watershed Implementation Grants. Washington, D.C., 29 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofWater, September 1994. Section 319 National Monitoring Program Projects: 1994 Summary Report.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X, October 1993. Monitoring Protocols to Evaluate Water Quality Effects of Grazing Management on Western Rangeland Streams. Seattle, Washington, 203 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofWater, January 1992. Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319 ofthe Clean Water Act (1989). Washington, D.C., 197 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development and Office of Water, 1992. The National Rural Clean Water Program Symposium. 10 Years of Controlling Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution: The RCWP Experience. Washington, D.C., EPA/625/R.-92/006, 400 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, 1990. Rural Clean Water Program: Lessons Learned from a Voluntazy Nonpoint Source Control Experiment. Washington, D.C., 29 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofWater, Office ofWetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office ofWetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, December 1987. Nonpoint Source Guidance. Washington, D.C., 47 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, September 1994. A Tribal Guide to the Section 319(h) Nonpoint Source Grant Program. Washington, D.C.

d ofl4

9/4/98 4:25 PM

Appendix A: Suggested Outline for Assessments of State Programs

http://www.epa.gov/owow/NPS/npsguid3.ht:n

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofWater, November 1994. Section 319 Success Stories: A Close-Up Look at the National Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. Washington, D.C., 128 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofWater, September 1992. State and Local Funding of Nonpoint Source Control Programs. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofWater, August 1993. Summazy of Current State Nonpoint Source Control Practices for Forestry. Washington, D.C., 203 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofWater, August 1993. Water Qualify Effects and Nonpoint Source Control for Forestty: An Annotated Bibliography. Washington, D.C., 241 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region Vlli, July 1993. Managing Change: Livestock Grazing on Western Riparian Areas. Denver, Colorado, 31 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofWater, April1995. Cleaner Water Through Conservation. Washington, D.C. 59 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofWater, September 1991. Seminar Publication: Nonpoint Source Watershed Workshop. Washington, D.C., 209 pp.
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, March 1992. A Current Assessment ofUrban Best Management Practices: Techniques for Reducing Non-Point Source Pollution in the Coastal Zone. Washington, D.C., 127 pp.
Metropolitan Washington Council ofGovemments, October 1992. Design of Storm water Wetland Systems. Washington, D.C., 133 pp.
Center for Watershed Protection, January 1994 (reprinted Jan. 1995 by the Terrene Institute). The Stream Protection Approach.
Northern Virginia Soil and Water Conservation District, July 1994. Developing Successful Runoff Control Programs for Urbanized Areas. Fairfax, Virginia, 94 pp.
Terrene Institute, August 1994. Fundamentals ofUrban RunoffManagement: Technical and Institutional Issues. Washington, D.C., 302 pp.
Terrene Institute, March 1994. Urbanization and Water Quality. Washington, D.C., 67 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofWater, Office ofWetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, 1994. Watershed Protection: A Project Focus. Washington, D.C. EPA 841.:.R-95-003.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 1993. Program Plan for the Section 319 National Monitoring Program. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofWater, 1991. Watershed Monitoring and Reporting for Section 319 National Monitoring Program Projects. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofWater, 1992. Nonpoint Source Management System.

12 ofl4

9/4/98 4:25 -;

-
-"""dix A: Suggested Outline for Assessments of State Programs

http:I/W\V\V.epa.0\'i OWOW. ;'; t' ;,:npsgl:>W.lll:UH

NPSMS Version 3.01 User's Guide. Washington, D.C.
APPENDIX I
NATIONAL MONITORING PROJECTS FUNDED UNDER SECTION 319

PROJECT
Lightwood-Knot Creek
Oak Creek_
Morro Bay
Jordan Cove
Lake Pittsfield
ISny Magill
IWalnut Creek
IEastern Snake River Plain
IWarner Creek ISycamore Creek
IElm Creek ILong Creek
IIllinois River
IPequea and Mill Creek
ILake Champlain IPuget Sound
IOtter Creek

II STATE

I

Alabama

I

Arizona

I

California

I

j Connecticut

I

I Illinois

I

II Iowa

I

II Iowa

I

II Idaho
IMaryland

I
l

Michigan

I

Nebraska

I

North Carolina

I

II Oklahoma

I

II Pennsylvania

l

I Vermont

I

II Washington

I

II Wisconsin

I

Note: For those not familiar with this program. a detailed description of the national nonpoint source monitoring projects is available from EPA.

NPS Homepage
EPA HOMEPAGE IOWOW HOME ISEARCH ICOMMENTS
Environmental Protection Agency's Office ofWetlands, Oceans. & Watersheds

__,f 14

9/4/98 4:25 PM

l l
UNIFIED WATERSHED ASSESSMENT WATERSHED RESTORATION PRIORITIES FOR
SECTION 319(h) FY96 GRANT FUNDING REVISED DECEMBER, 1998

UNIFIED WATERSHED ASSESSMENT (UWA)
GRANT OPPORTUNITY UPDATE
Under Section 319(h) of the Clean Water Act, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) awards a Nonpoint Source Implementation Grant to the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GAEPD) to fund eligible projects which support the implementation of the Georgia Nonpoint Source Management Program. The Section 319(h) Grant funds are limited. Therefore, the GAEPD uses a competitive process to ensure that the most appropriate projects are selected for funding.
The State has approximately $1 million in Section 319(h) FY96 Grant funds to implement watershed and statewide projects. Priority will be given to project which implement Watershed Restoration Action Strategies in areas identified by State's Unified Watershed Assessment as being "in need of restoration." These areas, referred to as "Category I Watersheds in Need of Restoration," are those watersheds that "do not now meet, or face imminent threats of not meeting, clean water and other natural resource goals."
The Clean Water Action Plan calls for states to work with the appropriate agencies, organizations and the public to identify Category I watersheds most in need of restoration beginning in the Federal FY1999 - 2000 period. The Unified Watershed Assessment for Georgia was developed by the GAEPD, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and the Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission (GSWCC), working with other interested Federal, State, local and private stakeholders. In accordance with the Unified Watershed Assessment Framework, the State will finalized the Watershed Restoration Priorities in October, 1998.
Nonpoint source pollution is the greatest source of water quality problems in Georgia today. The Clean Water Action Plan presents us all with exciting opportunities to focus our efforts and enhance our resources to solve these remaining water quality problems as well as to sustain good water quality. The application of Section 319(h) FY96 Grant funds to focus on solving our highest priority problems will enable us to make great strides in our efforts to achieve our water quality goals.

The USGS 8-digit hydrological cataloging unit served as the common scale for reporting the results of Unified Watershed Assessments and to help target resources. The following seventeen (17) watersheds have been identified as Watershed Restoration Priorities for Section 319(h) FY96
Grant funding:

. ' : ,:'

WATERSHED:.,:.: Tugaloo River

Broad River

Lower Savannah River

Upper Oconee River

Upper Ocmulgee River

Ocmulgee River

Satilla River

Alapaha River

Upper Ochlockonee River

Upper Chattahoochee River

Upper Middle Chattahoochee River

Upper Flint River

Conasauga River

Coosawatee River

Oostanaula River

Etowah River

Tallapoosa River

I: :: .,.,,

USGS CATALOGING UNIT 03060102 03060104 03060109 03070101 03070103 03070104 03070201 03110202 03120002 03130001 03130002 03130005 03150101 03150102 03150103 03150104 03150108

Additional information about the priority watersheds (e.g., rivers and streams in the watershed, land characteristics, river corridors and wetlands restoration efforts, index of watershed indicators, etc.) may be accessed through the USEPA webpage at:
http:lwww.epa.gov/surf21hucs/
The USGS 8-digit hydrological cataloging unit map for Georgia may be ordered from the USGS Earth Information Science Center (ESIC) at 1-800-USA-MAPS.

--aloo
News Flashes:
Tugaloo
USGS Cataloging Unit: 03060102

http://www.epa.gov/surf!HUCS!hucinfo/03060 1021

FIND YOUR PLACE:

Find out wh

. lO.~:>< l.:JtSCt.i:i510!,.o,.S.,.,.;,,.,
;t.ilZJ l!'<m~M,liH{>fll
.S~AA.C.J.-.! J~~m. ~m.>.n.rn<

Places Involving this Watershed

Environmental Profile
Find general information integratedfor this specific watershed

States: Georgia North Carolina South Carolina
Counties: Franklin Habersham Hart Rabun Stephens

Index ofWatershed Indicators Additional infonnation provided by States and Tribes River Corridors and Wetlands Restoration Efforts Environmental Web Sites:
o Real Time Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts)
o Toxic releases (Source:TRI- Toxic Release Inventory) o Hazardous Wastes (Source: RCRA- Resource
Conservation Recovery Act) o Superfund Sites (Source: CERCLA -Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act)

Towns Clay
Jackson
Macon

Water
Find informationfocused on waterfor this specific watershed

Anderson Oconee

Rivers and Streams in this Watershed: 19 (provided by EPA's first River Reach File)

Metropolitan

Lakes in the Watershed (Coming soon)

Areas:

River and stream miles:

Greenville-Spartanburg-Ange~% oftotal rivers and streams have been surveyed

9/4/98 9:03AM

Tugaloo

http://www.epa.govJsurt/HUCSthucinfot0300Qlu

Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson
o 191 miles meet all designated uses

Nominated Am~rican
~enta~e v;~

Nonpoint Source Projects in this watershed (Funded under Section 319(h) ofthe Clean Water Act) Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts)
o Community Water Sources (Source: SDWIS Safe

Rivera

Drinking Water Information System) o Water Dischargers (Source: PCS -Permit Compliance

Other Watersheds: upstream
None downstream 03060103

System) Information provided by the United States Geological Survey (USGS): li~itrr-~)
o Stream Flow (Source: USGS) o Science in Your Watershed o Historical Water Data

Large

o Water Resources

Ecosystems: Savannah River Southern

o Water use (1990): Information about the amount ofwater used and how it is used
o Selected USGS Abstracts

Appalachians
Assessment
(SAA)
Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere
Reserve Area

Land
Find watershed informationfocused on land characteristics Land Characteristics:
Area: 997.25. sq mi; perimeter: I99.36 mi

(SAMAB) Landscape-Scale
Assessment

Landscape Indicators: I% urban, 96% forest, 6% crop use (overlapping, sum could be more than I00% )

Southern Appalachian

People

Mountains Initiative

Find out about local actions in this watershed:

(SAMI)

American Indian Tribes (Source: US Census): None Known

National Watershed Network (provided by Conservation Technology Information Center) !:tali EF~l

Citizen-based Groups at work in this Watershed (Provided by

Adopt Your Watershed)

Join now

Air
Find informationfocused on airfor this watershed:
Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts) o Air (Source: AIRS)

EPA HOME l CONTACTS l DISCLAIMER l~I HELP ICOMMENTS TEXT VERSION l SURF HOME

2of2

9/4/98 9:l .<-'A

rs in HUC# 03060102

http://www.epa.gov/cgi-binlsur1search2.pl?geography=st:reamsperhuc&vaiue=03060 102

Surf Your Waters

FIND YOURPLACE:

Rivers and Streams in HUC# 03060102
o Brasswater Creek o Chatooga River o Chauga River o Choestea Creek o Eastanolee Creek o Fowler Creek o Hartwell Res o Lake Burton o Little Beaverdam Creek o Little Choestoea Creek o Panther Creek o Rock Creek o Seneca River o Stekoa Creek o Tallulah River o Taxaway Creek o Tiger Creek o Tugaloo River o Warwoman Creek

1

9/4/98 4:22 PM

http://www.epa.gov/surf!HUCS!hucinfo/03060104/

Surf Your Waters
WATERSHED ENVIRONMENTAL PROFI Ellll~~l.IBJ.t~~~---

News Flashes:

find out wh

FIND YOUR PLACE:

L::: : ::__~::: :: :: ::::J

.

.lOi!.><

>xS<:ti:.>Jor.s ;,,,.,,

,

.

...

'I.H1J lNm~M>'<Jl(>~

~:i'M((ti ~~~fOf.lt.tAW.lN

Broad
USGS Cataloging Unit: 03060104

Places Involving this Watershed
States: Georgia South Carolina
Counties: Banks Clarke Elbert Franklin Habersham Hall Hart Jackson Lincoln Madison Oglethorpe Stephens Wilkes McCormick
Metropolitan

Environmental Profile
Find general information integratedfor this specific watershed
Index ofWatershed Indicators Additional information provided by States and Tribes River Corridors and Wetlands Restoration Efforts Environmental Web Sites:
o Real Time Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts)
o Toxic releases (Source:TRI -Toxic Release Inventory) o Hazardous Wastes (Source: RCRA- Resource
Conservation Recovery Act) o Superfund Sites (Source: CERCLA -Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act)
Water
Find informationfocused on waterfor this specific watershed
Rivers and Streams in this Watershed: 29 (provided by EPA's first River Reach File) Lakes in the Watershed (Coming soon) River and stream miles:
o % oftotal rivers and streams have been surveyed

9/4/98 9:00 AM

Broad

http://www.epa.gov/surfi'HUCS/hucinfo/03060 )Jl.

Areas: Athens
Nominated American Heritage Rivers: None
Other Watersheds: upstream None downstream 03060103
Large Ecosystems: Savannah River Southern
Appalachians
Assessment
(SAA) Southern Appalachian
Man and the Biosphere ReseiVe Area (SAMAB) Landscape-Scale Assessment Southern
Appalachian Mountains Initiative (SAMI)

o % oftotal rivers and streams have been surveyed o miles meet all designated uses Nonpoint Source Proiects in this watershed (Funded under Section 319(h) ofthe Clean Water Act) Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts) o Community Water Sources (Source: SDWIS Safe
Drinking Water Information System) o Water Dischargers (Source: PCS -Permit Compliance
System) Information provided by the United States Geological Survey (USGS): htu rr-~> l
o Stream Flow (Source: USGS) o Science in Your Watershed o Historical Water Data o Water Resources o Water use (1990): Information about the amount of water
used and how it is used o Selected USGS Abstracts
Land
Find watershed informationfocused on land characteristics Land Characteristics:
Area: 1,501.12 sq mi~ perimeter: 199.31 mi Landscape Indicators: 0% urban, 99% forest, 2% crop use (overlapping, sum could be more than 100% )
People
Find out about local actions in this watershed:
American Indian Tribes (Source: US Census): None Known National Watershed Network (provided by Conservation Technology Information Center) liiail r~>~) Citizen-based Groups at work in this Watershed (Provided by Adopt Your Watershed) Join now

Air
Find informationfocused on airfor this watershed:

Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts) o Air (Source: AIRS)

EPA HOME ICONTACTS IDISCLAIMER IABOtrr IHELP ICOMMENTS TEXT VERSION ISURF HOME

2 of2

9/4/98 9:00 AL

"'TS in HUC# 03060104

http://www.epa.gov/cgi-binlsurflsearch2.pl?geography=streamsperhuc&vaiue=03060104

Surf Your Waters-h

FIND YOURPLACE:
:::::::::::::::::: ~~-~

Rivers and Streams in HUC# 03060104
o Beaver Creek o Big Cloud Creek o Big Could Creek o Black Creek o Broad River o Buffalo Creek o Clark Creek o Coody River o Curlan Creek o Double Creek o DoveCreek o DryFk o Falling Creek o Grove Creek o Hickory Level Creek o Hudson River o Hutton Creek o Indian Creek . o Leatherwood Creek o LongBr o Long Creek o Mack's Creek o MiddleFk o Mill Creek o Mill Shoal Creek o Nails Creek o Scull Shoal Creek o Una Watti Creek o Wah3;tchee River

9/4/98 9:01 AM

~rSavanuah

http://www.cpa.gov/surf/HUCS/hucinfo/03060 109/

Surf Your Waters
WATERSHED ENVIRONMENTAL PROFI IEAI~i.ll:fNE!t?L.................... . ...

News flashes:

find out wh

FIND YOUR PLACE:
Jm~ l:"J!SO:~:>>!:O~s
um m~os;M;.1 t(>f< .<..:.f.AA..C. t.i.l.t.t..ft)~tAAl."l~

Lower Savannah
USGS Cataloging Unit: 03060109

Places Involving this Watershed
States: Georgia South Carolina
Counties: Chatham Effingham Screven Allendale Hampton
~
Metropolitan Areas: Savannah
Nominated American Heritage Rivers: Savannah River

Environmental Profile
Find general information integratedfor this specific watershed
Index ofWatershed Indicators Additional information provided by States and Tribes River Corridors and Wetlands Restoration Efforts Environmental Web Sites:
o Real Time Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts)
o Toxic releases (Source:TRI- Toxic Release Inventory) o Hazardous Wastes (Source: RCRA- Resource
Conservation Recovery Act) o Superfund Sites (Source: CERCLA -Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act)
Water
Find information focused on waterfor this specific watershed
Rivers an4 Streams in this Watershed: 11 (provided by EPA's
first River Reach File) Lakes in the Watershed (Coming soon) River and stream miles:
o 12% oftotal rivers and streams have been surveyed

9/4/98 8:59 AM

Lower SaV&DII8h

http://www.epa.gov/surf/HUCSihucmfo/030oO~~

Other Watersheds: upstream 03060106
03060108
03060204
downstream
03050208
Large Ecosystems: Savannah River West
Chatham
County Wetlands Advance Identification
(ADID) Project

o 0 miles meet all designated uses Nonpoint Source Projects in this watershed (Funded under Section 319(h) ofthe Clean Water Act) Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts)
o Community Water Sources (Source: SDWIS Safe Drinking Water Information System)
o Water Dischargers (Source: PCS -Permit Compliance System)
Information provided by the United States Geological Survey (USGS): 1\f:U(u-A)
o Stream Flow (Source: USGS) o Science in Your Watershed o Historical Water Data o Water Resources o Water use (1990): Information about the amount ofwater
used and how it is used o Selected USGS Abstracts
Land
Find watershed informationfocused on land characteristics Land Characteristics:
Area: 933.15 sq mi; perimeter: 177.28 mi Landscape Indicators: I% urban, 91% forest, 30% crop use (overlapping, sum could be more than I00% )
People
Find out about local actions in this watershed:
American Indian Tribes (Source: US Census): None Known National Watershed Network (provided by Conservation Technology Information Center) ~au [fA) Citizen-based Groups at work in this Watershed (Provided by Adopt Your Watershed) Join now
Air
Find information focused on airfor this watershed:
Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts) o Air (Source: AIRS)

EPA HOME ICONTACTS IDISCLAIMER IABOtrr IHELP ICOMMENTS TEXT VERSION I SURF HOME

2of2

9/4/98 8:59 ),

-rs in HUC# 03060109

http://www.epa.gov/cgi-binlsur1search2.pl?geography=streamsperhuc&value=03060 109

Surf Your Watersh

FIND YOURPLACE:
I_::

Rivers and Streams in HUC# 03060109
o Abercorn Creek o Dashers Creek o DryBr o Ebenezer Creek o Lockners Creek o Pipemakers Canal o RunsBr o S Channel o Savannah River o Turkey Creek o Tybee Roads

9/4/98 8:59 AM

'.~Oconee
News flashes:
Upper Oconee
USGS Cataloging Unit: 03070 I0 I

http://www.cpa.gov/surf!HUCS!hucinfo/03070 1011

FIND YOUR PLACE:

find out wh

J. Oj~

<!St:~:.:>!:OM
,.,.,.,.,,.,. ...

. :>.nn mm~M.S.1K~<

. ~:fAACri l!<ft>l::t.v.n>.m

Places Involving this Watershed
States: Georgia
Counties: Baldwin Banks Barrow Clarke Greene Gwinnett Hall
Hancock Jackson
~
Jones Madison Morgan Newton Oconee Qglethorne Putnam Taliaferro

Environmental Profile
Find general information integratedfor this specific watershed
Index ofWatershed Indicators Additional information provided by States and Tribes River Corridors and Wetlands Restoration Efforts Environmental Web Sites:
o Real Time Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts)
o Toxic releases (Source:TRI- Toxic Release Inventory) o Hazardous Wastes (Source: RCRA- Resource
Conservation Recovery Act) o Superfund Sites (Source: CERCLA -Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act)
Water
Find information focused on waterfor this specific watershed
Rivers and Streams in this Watershed: 54 (provided by EPA's first River Reach File) Lakes in the Watershed (Coming soon) River and stream miles:
o % oftotal rivers and streams have been surveyed

9/4/98 8:56 AM

Upper Oconee

http://www.epa.gov/sur1HUCS/hucinfo/03070U

Walton
Metropolitan Areas: Atlanta Athens Macon
Nominated American Heritage Rivers: None
Other Watersheds: upstream None downstream 03070102

%oftotal rivers and streams have been surveyed o miles meet all designated uses Nonpoint Source Projects in this watershed (Funded under Section 319(h) ofthe Clean Water Act) Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts) o Community Water Sources (Source: SDWIS Safe
Drinking Water Information System) o Water Dischargers (Source: PCS - Permit Compliance
System) Information provided by the United States Geological Survey
(USGS): li:!iftN)
o Stream Flow (Source: USGS) o Science in Your Watershed o .Historical Water Data o Water Resources o Water use (1990): Information about the amount ofwater
used and how it is used o Selected USGS Abstracts

Large Ecosystems:
Southern Appalachians Assessment (SAA)
Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere Reserve Area (SAMAB) Landscape-Scale Assessment
Southern Appalachian Mountains Initiative (SAM!)

Land
Find watershed informationfocused on land characteristics Land Characteristics:
Area: 2,925.27 sq mi; perimeter: 262.47 mi Landscape Indicators: I% urban, 97% forest, 7% crop use (overlapping, sum could be more than 100% )
People
Find out about local actions in this watershed:
American Indian Tribes (Source: US Census): None Known National Watershed Network (provided by Conservation Technology Information Center) l!;i(EPA] Citizen-based Groups at work in this Watershed (Provided by Adopt Your Watershed) Join now

Air
Find informationfocused on airfor this watershed:

Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts) o Air (Source: AIRS)

EPA HOME ICONTACTS IDISCLAIMER IABOUf IHELP ICOMMENTS TEXT VERSION ISURF HOME

2of2

9/4/98 8:56 J-J,i

, , in HUC# 03070101

http://www.epa.gov/cgi-binlsurflsearch2.pl?geography=streamsperhuc&value=o3070 l 0 i.

Surf Your Waters

fTI'I<'D YOURPLACE:
c:~~---:: ::::: .J.O~!~ l:l:~c:~.;s:>to~~ .t.t'l!J I~F0$(1'f<>\1"10!.! ~:t~ROt 1~!0!!M.<HI~N M.<\~ifll~Y

Rivers and Streams in HUC# 03070101
o Allen Creek o Apalachee River o Barber Creek o Barrow Creek o Big Cedar Creek o Big Creek o Big Sandy Creek o Cedar Creek o Crooked Creek o Curry Creek o Falling Creek o Fishing Creek o Ford Creek o Glade Brook o Gladly Creek o Greenbrier Creek o Hard Labor Creek o Harris Creek o Hog Creek o Hunnicut Creek o Indian Creek o Jack's Creek o Kimbro Creek o Lake Sinclair o Little Cedar Creek o Little Mulberry River o Little River o Little Sugar Creek o Lundy Creek o M Oconee River o Marburg Creek o Mcnutt Creek o Mulberry River o Murder Creek o N Oconee River o Neel Creek o Oconee River o Oliver Creek

9/4/98 8:57 AM

Rivers in HUC# 03070101
o Parks Creek o Pittman Creek o PondFk o Richland Creek o Rocky Creek o Rooty Creek o Rose Creek o S Sugar Creek o Sandy Creek o Shoal Creek o Stewart Creek o Sugar Creek o Taylor Creek o Town Creek o Whitten Creek o WolfCreek

http://www.epa.gov/cgi-binlsuriscarch2.pl?gcography=streamsperhuc&value=03070,LQ

2of2

9/4/98 8:5'7 .J

rOcmulgee
News Flashes:
Upper Ocmulgee
USGS Cataloging Unit: 03070103

http://vvww.epa.gov/sur1HUCSihucinfo/03070103t

find out wh

FIND YOUR PLACE:

L~-~------:::::::::::::::
. JO!?>< ,,fs<::~:>>!Or.s M!Zl l:Nm$< MM ~(>!<
<.~f.t.l.ltOi. l?~f US.{t.'-"'l"lili<

:: :::.;

Places Involving this Watershed
States: Georgia
Counties: Bibb Butts Clayton Crawford DeKalb Fulton Gwinnett
~
Houston
~
Jones Lamar
Monroe Newton Peach Rockdale Spalding Twiggs

Environmental Profile
Find general information integratedfor this specific watershed
Index ofWatershed Indicators Additional information provided by States and Tribes River Corridors and Wetlands Restoration Efforts Environmental Web Sites:
o Real Time Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts)
o Toxic releases (Source:TRI- Toxic Release Inventory) o Hazardous Wastes (Source: RCRA- Resource
Conservation Recovery Act) o Superfund Sites (Source: CERCLA -Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act)
Water
Find informationfocused on waterfor this specific watershed
Rivers and Streams in this Watershed: .21 (provided by EPA's
first River Reach File) Lakes in the Watershed (Coming soon) River and stream miles:
o 28% of total rivers and streams have been surveyed

11.2

9/4/98 8:57 AM

Upper Ocmuigee
~
Walton
Metropolitan Areas: Atlanta Macon
Nominated American Heritage Rivers: None
Other Watersheds: upstream None downstream 03070104
Large Ecosystems:

http://www.epa.gov/surf!HUCS/hucinfo/03070H
28% oftotal rivers and streams have been surveyed o 295 miles meet all designated uses Nonpoint Source Proiects in this watershed (Funded under Section 319(h) ofthe Clean Water Act) Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts) o Community Water Sources (Source: SDWIS Safe
Drinking Water Infonnation System) o Water Dischargers (Source: PCS -Permit Compliance
System) Infonnation provided by the United States Geological Survey
(USGS): g;:,iitN'
o Stream Flow (Source: USGS) o Science in Your Watershed o Historical Water Data o Water Resources o Water use (1990): Infonnation about the amount of water
used and how it is used o Selected USGS Abstracts
Land
Find watershed informationfocused on land characteristics Land Characteristics:
Area: 2,981.07 sq mi; perimeter: 273.77 mi Landscape Indicators: 6% urban, 90% forest, 15% crop use (overlapping, sum could be more than 100% )
People
Find out about local actions in this watershed:
American Indian Tribes (Source: US Census): None Known National Watershed Network (provided by Conservation
Technology Infonnation Center) 1=*3ii F:P"':
Citizen-based Groups at work in this Watershed (Provided by Adopt Your Watershed) Join now
Air
Find informationfocused on airfor this watershed:
Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts) o Air (Source: AIRS)

EPA HOME I CONTACTS I DISCLAIMER I ABOliT I HELP I COMMENTS TEXT VERSION I SURF HOME

2of2

9/4/98 8:S7 Alvl

--sinHUC# 03070103

http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/surflsearch2.pl?geography=streamsperhuc&value=03070 103

Surf Your \Vatersh

FIND YOURPLACE:
::. ~:::::::::::q :

Rivers and Streams in HUC# 03070103
o Alcovy River o Bay Creek o BearCreek o Beaver Ruin Creek o Big Cotton Creek o Big Flat Creek o Big Haynes Creek 0 Big Sandy Creek 0 Brushy Fk Creek o Buck Creek o Cabin Creek 0 Cobb Creek 0 Conley Creek 0 Cornish Creek 0 Dee River Creek o Deep Creek o Echeconnee Creek o Edie Creek 0 Failing Creek 0 Fox Creek 0 Gum Creek 0 Herds Creek 0 Honey Creek 0 Indian Creek o Jackson Creek o Jackson Lake o James Creek o Kinnard Creek 0 Little Echeconnee Creek 0 Little Failing Creek o Little Haynes Creek o Little Tobesofkee River o Little Towaliga Creek 0 Mountain Creek 0 Ocmulgee River o Pole Bridge Creek o Rocky Creek o RumCreek

'C...
9/4/98 8:58AM

Rivers in HUC# 03070103
o Sampson Creek o Snapping Shoals Creek o South River o Stone Creek o Stone Mountain Creek o Sweetwater Creek o Tobesofkee River o Towaliga Creek o Tussahaw Creek o Walnut Creek o WolfCreek o Yellow River o Yellow Water Creek

http://www.epa.gov/cgi-binlsurf/search2.pl?geography=streamsperhuc&value=0307n'l

2of2

9/4/98 8:58 .:J

SurfYour Watershed- Watershed Information ...

Page 1 of3

Surf Your Watersh
News Plashes:
Lower Ocmulgee
USGS Cataloging Unit: 03070104

. ~u--=-<~ ~f~cu;~t .>NS . J~DO u~~o~ M-~?'1{).!~ '> >.!!< tl m:'G>II>'-P> 0<.>~<
MA~ ti~AAII'(

. .

.

....:.~....;.:

.....

........ ..........~
'

Places Involving Environmental Profile
this Watershed
Find general information integratedfor this specific watershed

States: Georgia

Assessments of Watershed Health Index of Watershed Indicators (provided by EPA)

Counties: Ben Hill

Unified Watershed Assessments (UWA) (provided by States and Tribes) Environmental Information

Bleckley Coffee Crawford Dodge Dooly Houston Irwin
Je:ffDavis Macon Montgomety Peach Pulaski

River Corridors and Wetlands Restoration Efforts Environmental Web Sites:
Real Time Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts)
Toxic releases (Source:TRI- Toxic Release Inventory) Hazardous Wastes (Source: RCRA- Resource Conservation
Recovery Act) Superfund Sites (Source: CERCLA -Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act) EnviroMapper for Watersheds- (interactive mapping tool)

Telfair

Twiggs Wheeler Wilcox

Water
Find informationfocused on waterfor this specific watershed

Metropolitan Areas: Macon

Rivers and Streams in this Watershed: 35 (provided by EPA's first River Reach File) Lakes in the Watershed (Coming soon) River and stream miles:

http://www.epa.gov/surf21hucs/03070104/

12/22/98

SurfYour Watershed-- Watershed Information ...

Page 2 of3

Nominated American Heritage Riven: None
Other Watenbeds:
. upstream ~ Ocmulgee
Little Ocmulgee
downstream Altamaha
Large Ecosystems: None

2641.6 total river miles 1149.4 perennial river miles I2% of total rivers and streams have been surveyed I34 miles meet all designated uses
This hue's principal aquifer is No Principal Aquifer which is 875 square miles and has a rock type ofN/A
Nonpoint Source Projects in this watershed (Funded under Section 3I9(h) of the Clean Water Act) Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts)
Community Water Sources (Source: SDWIS Safe Drinking Water Information System)
Water Dischargers (Source: PCS- Permit Compliance System) Information provided by the United States Geological Survey (USGS): 1~3ii ~-~ l
Stream Flow (Source: USGS) Science in Your Watershed Historical Water Data Water use (I990): Information about the amount of water used and how
it is used Selected USGS Abstracts

Land
Find watershed informationfocused on land characteristics Land Characteristics: Area: 2249.68 sq mi; perimeter: 288.32 mi Landscape Indicators: 1% urban, I% forest, 59% crop use (overlapping, sum ~ould be more than I00% )

People
Find out about local actions in this watershed:
American Indian Tribes (Source: US Census): None Known National Watershed Network (provided by Conservation Technology Information Center) 13ii [r>A) Citizen-based Groups at work in this Watershed (Provided by Adopt Your Watershed) Join now

Air
Find information focused on airfor this watershed:
Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts) Air (Source: AIRS)

EPA HOME ICONTACTS I DISCL-\JMER I ABOtiT I HELP I COMMENTS
http://www.epa.gov/surf2/hucs/03070 104/

I2/22"98

Rivers in HUC# 03070 I 04

Page I of I

Surf Your Watersh

~Your
,.;0:.<>~aiershed
j'->lN D;S(IJ%10"<:>
~00 l~fVRMAHON
,h:O,li(l< tt<'Hli!M."-IJ(!>; M.>l" U!l!<I.<U>l)"

Rivers and Streams in HUC# 03070104
Alligator Creek Baptist Creek Bay Creek Bay Gall Creek Big Creek Big Horse Creek Big Indian Creek BluffCreek Brushy Creek Camp Creek Cedar Creek Crooked Creek Dry Creek Evergreen Creek Flat Creek Horse Creek House Creek Indian Creek Jordan Creek Little House Creek Little Ocmulgee River Mosquito Creek Mossy Creek Mule Creek Ocmulgee River Oconee River Otter Creek Richland Creek SProng S SheUstone Creek Sandy Run Creek Savage Creek Shellstone Creek Sturgeon Creek Tenmile Creek

http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/surf2/search.pl?geography=streamsperhuc&value=03070I04

12/22/98

SurfYour Watershed- Watershed Information ...
Surf Your Watersh
News Plashes:
Satilla
USGS Cataloging Unit: 03070201

Page 1 of3

.. .~o :--~ ~~5.CU,5l~.)NS

4!10 U~~(Jf;Mt,TI01..;

.. ~~Hi H J.N: ~ (';~J)V. f J< ~,_.<

~

.

MAf" U"RA~Y

\:.

... .:\..:.

:~ .>~,. .~ ~.:. ;:

<.. r~~-.....::;;::: :

..,

.....

Places Involving this Watershed

Environmental Profile

Find general information integratedfor this specific watershed

States: Georgia Assessments of Watershed Health

Counties: Atkinson Bacon Ben Hill Brantley Camden Charlton Clinch Coffee Irwin JeffDavis Pierce Ware Wayne
MetropoUtan Areas:

Index ofWatershed Indicators (provided by EPA) Unified Watershed Assessments (UWA) (provided by States and Tribes) Environmental Information River Corridors and Wetlands Restoration Efforts Environmental Web Sites:
Real Time Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts)
Toxic releases (Source:TRI- Toxic Release Inventory) Hazardous Wastes (Source: RCRA- Resource Conservation
Recovery Act) Superfund Sites (Source: CERCLA -Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act) EnviroMapper for Watersheds- (interactive mapping tool)
Water

Nominated American Heritage Rivers: None

Find informationfocused on water for this specific watershed Rivers and Streams in this Watershed: 21 (provided by EPA's first River Reach File)
Lakes in the Watershed (Coming soon)
River and stream miles:

http://www.epa.gov/surf2/hucs/0307020l/

12/22/98

SurfYour Watershed- Watershed Information ...

Page 2 of3

Other Watersheds:
upstream Little Satilla Cumberland-St
Simons
downstream None
Large Ecosystems: None

2079.1 total river miles 1480 perennial river miles %oftotal rivers and streams have been surveyed miles meet all designated uses
This hue's principal aquifer is Surficial aquifer system which is 2623 square miles and has a rock type ofUnconsolidated sand and gravel aquifers
Nonpoint Source Projects in this watershed (Funded under Section 319(h) of the Clean Water Act) Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts)
Community Water Sources (Source: SDWIS Safe Drinking Water Information System)
Water Dischargers (Source: PCS - Permit Compliance System) Information provided by the United States Geological Survey (USGS):
131 tJA l
Stream Flow (Source: USGS) Science in Your Watershed Historical Water Data Water use (1990): Information about the amount of water used and
how it is used Selected USGS Abstracts

Land
Find watershed informationfocused on land characteristics Land Characteristics:
Area: 2619.09 sq mi; perimeter: 324.24 mi Landscape Indicators: 1% urban, 1% forest, 60% crop use (overlapping, sum could be more than 100% )

People
Find out about local actions in this watershed:

American Indian Tribes (Source: US Census): None Known National Watershed Network (provided by Conservation Technology
Information Center) l=tlii EFA l
Citizen-based Groups at work in this Watershed (Provided by Adopt Your Watershed) Join now

Air
Find informationfocused on air for this watershed:

Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts) Air (Source: AIRS)

http://www.epa.gov/surf21hucs/03070201/

. 12/22198

Rivers in HUC# 03070201

Page 1 ofl

Surf Your Watersh

i&:ateYour
,.~~~ershed
.l'-'lN t>;50YiS10"<$ nl>~ I!>F<..>HMAH<:.<N
_"">_. . . . . . . . .,~tH~(ti 11-~HJR:\\~IJ(I"; ~~ M.~fo' Ul.lKO.i>l)'

Rivers and Streams in HUC# 03070201

Alabaha River Big Creek Broxton Creek Buffalo Creek Halls Creek Hog Creek Hurricane Creek Indian Creek Kettle Creek Little Hurricane Creek Little Satilla River Mill Creek Otter Creek Pudding Creek Red Bluff Creek Rose Creek SProng Satilla River Seventeenmile Creek Whitehead Creek Wiggins Creek

http://www. epa.gov/cgi-bin/surt2/search. pl?geography=streamsperhuc&value=0307020 1

12/2Z/98

tpaha

http://www.epa.gov/surf/HUCS/hucinfo/0311 02021

Surf Your Waters
WATERSHED ENVIRONMENTAL PROFI
~mm~f.~Wt...~---""'========='''

News Flashes:

Find out wh

FIND YOUR PLACE:

.

.

. lO~N iJ!'S(\t!>510~<S
,.,,,..,._,. ...

. :!.(10 lN!'Cl$iM,1s:H<)t$

~fAAOi l?~fOf.ltAAl'lON

Alapaha
USGS Cataloging Unit: 03110202

Places Involving this Watershed
States: Florida Georgia
Counties: Hamilton Suwannee Atkinson BenHill Berrien Clinch Coffee Crisp Dooly Echols Irwin Lanier Lowndes Tift Turner Wilcox

Environmental Profile
Find general information integratedfor this specific watershed
Index ofWatershed Indicators Additional information provided by States and Tribes River Corridors and Wetlands Restoration Efforts Environmental Web Sites:
o Real Time Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts)
o Toxic releases (Source:TRI- Toxic Release Inventory) o Hazardous Wastes (Source: RCRA- Resource
Conservation Recovery Act) o Superfund Sites (Source: CERCLA -Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act)
Water
Find information focused on waterfor this specific watershed
Rivers and Streams in this Watershed: 14 (provided by EPA's first River Reach File) Lakes in the Watershed (Coming soon) River and stream miles:
o 1% of total rivers and streams have been surveyed

J2

9/4/98 8:55AM

Alapaha

Metropolitan Areas: None
Nominated American Heritage Rivers: None
Other Watersheds:
upstream None downstream 03110201
Large Ecosystems: Gulfof Mexico Program

http://www.epa.gov/surt!HUCS/hucinfo/031107n
1% of total rivers and streams have been surveyed o 18 miles meet all designated uses Nonpoint Source Projects in this watershed (Funded under Section 319(h) ofthe Clean Water Act) Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts) o Community Water Sources (Source: SDWIS Safe
Drinking Water Infonnation System) o Water Dischargers (Source: PCS -Permit Compliance
System) Infonnation provided by the United States Geological Survey (USGS): l\f,~wr''"'
o Stream Flow (Source: USGS) o Science in Your Watershed o Historical Water Data o Water Resources o Water use (1990): Infonnation about the amount ofwater
used and how it is used o Selected USGS Abstracts
Land
Findwatershed informationfocused on land characteristics Land Characteristics:
Area: 1,815.56 sq mi; perimeter: 301.02 mi Landscape Indicators: 1% urban, 64% forest, 60% crop use (overlapping, sum could be more than 100% )
People
Find out about local actions in this watershed:
American Indian Tribes (Source: US Census): None Known National Watershed Network (provided by Conservation
Technology Infonnation Center) '*=1iffil
Citizen-based Groups at work in this Watershed (Provided by Adopt Your Watershed) Join now
Air
Find informationfocused on airfor this watershed:
Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts) o Air (Source: AIRS)

EPA HOME ICONTACTS IDISCLAIMER IABOUT IHELP ICOMMENTS TEXT VERSION ISURF HOME

2of2

9/4/98 8:55 Ml;j

-s in HUC# 03110202

http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/surfi'search2.pl?geography=streamsperhuc&value=0311 0202

Surf Your Watersh

FIND YOURPLACE:
[ :::::: q::::H

Rivers and Streams in HUC# 03110202
o Alpaha River o Big Creek o Deep Creek o Double Run Creek o Fivemile Creek o Grand Bay Creek o Hat Creek o Middle Creek o Mill Creek o Mud Creek o Reedy Creek o Suwannee River o Tenmile Creek o Willacoochee River

9/4/98 8:56AM

per Ochlockonee
News Flashes:
Upper Ochlockonee
USGS Cataloging Unit: 03120002

http://W\\<W.epa.gov/surfiHUCS/hucinfoi031200021

FIND YOUR PLACE:

find out wh

lO;J:>.. . t>.<SW.:i5!~~.S........, ..
:l.n!) lllir<l$iM,1s11{>tJ
<
.~iAA.Ct.!. j~~.fU.fltMl"l'JN

Places Involving this Watershed
States: Georgia
Counties: Colquitt Decatur
Grady Mitchell
Thomas Worth
Metropolitan Areas: None
Nominated American Heritage Rivers: None
Other Watersheds: upstream

Environmental Profile
Find general information integratedfor this specific watershed
Index ofWatershed Indicators Additional information provided by States and Tribes River Corridors and Wetlands Restoration Efforts Environmental Web Sites:
o Real Time
Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts)
o Toxic releases (Source:TRI- Toxic Release Inventory) o Hazardous Wastes (Source: RCRA- Resource
Conservation Recovery Act) o Superfund Sites (Source: CERCLA -Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act)
Water
Find irrformation focused on waterfor this specific watershed
Rivers and Streams in this Watershed: 2. (provided by EPA's
first River Reach File) Lakes in the Watershed (Coming soon) River and stream miles:
o % of total rivers and streams have been surveyed

9/4/98 4:34 PM ,

Upper Ochlockonee
None downstream 03120003
Large Ecosystems: Gulfof Mexico Program

http://www.epa.gov/surf!HUCS/hucmfot0312J)JJ
% oftotal rivers and streams have been surveyed o miles meet all designated uses Nonpoint Source Projects in this watershed (Funded under Section 319(h) ofthe Clean Water Act) Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts) o Community Water Sources (Source: SDWIS Safe
Drinking Water Information System) o Water Dischargers (Source: PCS - Permit Compliance
System) Information provided by the United States Geological Survey {USGS): llEU u~>)
o Stream Flow (Source: USGS) o Science in Your Watershed o Historical Water Data o Water Resources o Water use (1990): Information about the amount ofwater
used and how it is used o Selected USGS Abstracts

Land
Find watershed informationfocused on land characteristics Land Characteristics:
Area: 912.68 sq mi; perimeter: 144.48 mi
Landscape Indicators: 1% urban, 61% forest, 71% crop use (overlapping, sum could be more than 100% )
People
Find out about local actions in this watershed:
American Indian Tribes (Source: US Census): None Known National Watershed Network (provided by Conservation Technology Information Center) l:,o:UirP:.) Citizen-based Groups at work in this Watershed (Provided by Adopt Your Watershed) Join now
Air
Find informationfocused on airfor this watershed:
Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts) o Air (Source: AIRS)
EPA HOME ICONTACTS IDISCI.AIMER I ABOUf IHELP ICOMMENTS TEXT' VERSION ISURF HOME

2of2

9/4/984:1 .tJ

TS in HUC# 03 120002

http://www.epa.gov/cgi-binlsur1search2.pl?geography=streamsperhuc&value=03120002

Surf "Your Waters-h

FIND YOURPLACE:
1: :: : ::

Rivers and Streams in HUC# 03120002
o Bametts Creek o Bridge Creek o Little Creek o Little Ochlocknee River o Little Tired Creek o Lost Creek o Ochlocknee River o Tired Creek o Turkey Creek

9/4/98 4:36 PM

~ Chattahoochee
News Flashes:
Upper Chattahoochee
USGS Cataloging Unit: 03130001

http:i/www.epa.gov/suri/HIJCS/hucinfo/03130001J

find out wh

FIND YOUR PLACE:
[ :::::::::::: ::::::: : :::::: :: ~
JOm l:.>!S(ti~510"S O.UZl l""~G:XM,:S1l<>!<l
'-iM;:CH ~~~f0Rt.<.Arl>JN

Places Involving this Watershed
States: Georgia
Counties: Banks Cherokee Cobb
Dawson
DeKalb Forsyth Fulton Gwinnett Habersham Hall Lumpkin Rabun Towns Union White
Metropolitan Areas:

Environmental Profile
Find general information integratedfor this specific watershed
Index ofWatershed Indicators Additional information provided by States and Tribes River Conidors and Wetlands Restoration Efforts .Environmental Web Sites:
o Real Time Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts)
o Toxic releases (Source:TR.I- Toxic Release Inventory) o Hazardous Wastes (Source: RCRA- Resource
Conservation Recovery Act) o Superfund Sites (Source: CERCLA -Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act)
Water
Find informationfocused on waterfor this specific watershed
Rivers and Streams in this Watershed: 26 (provided by EPA's first River Reach File) Lakes in the Watershed (Coming soon) River and stream miles:
o 26% oftotal rivers and streams have been surveyed

9/4/98 8:5 lAM

Upper Chattahoochee

hnp:tlwww.epa.gov/suritHUCSiilucinl0!03 i3liliv

Atlanta

o 26% oftotal rivers and streams have been surveyed o 152 miles meet all designated uses

Nominated American Heritage

Nonpoint Source Proiects in this watershed (Funded under Section 3 19(h) ofthe Clean Water Act) Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts)

Rivers: Chattahoochee River

o Community Water Sources (Source: SDWIS Safe Drinking Water Infonnation System)
o Water Dischargers (Source: PCS -Permit Compliance

Other
Watersheds: upstream

System) Information provided by the United States Geological Survey (USGS): lif,~ii E!"'-'

None downstream 03130002

o Stream Flow (Source: USGS) o Science in Your Watershed o Historical Water Data

Large Ecosystems:
Gulfof Mexico Program

o Water Resources o Water use {1990): Information about the amount ofwater
used and how it is used o Selected USGS Abstracts

Southern

Appalachians
Assessment

Land

(SAA)

Findwatershed informationfocused on land characteristics Land

Southern
Appalachian Man and the Biosphere
Reserve Area
(SAMAB)

Characteristics:
Area: 1,555.66 sq mi; perimeter: 248.96 mi
Landscape Indicators: 13% urban, 81% forest, 12% crop use (overlapping, sum could be more than 100% )

Landscape-Scale
Assessment
Southern Appalachian

People
Find out about local actions in this watershed:

Mountains

Initiative (SAM!)

American Indian Tribes (Source: US Census): None Known National Watershed Network (provided by Conservation

Technology Information Center) li1i(P:.]

Citizen-based Groups at work in this Watershed (Provided by

Adopt Your Watershed)

Join now

Air
Find informationfocused on airfor this watershed:

Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts) o Air (Source: AIRS)

EPA HOME ICONTACTS IDISCLAIMER IABOUT IHELP ICOMMENTS TEXT VERSION ISURF HOME

2of2

9/4/98 8:51 .

ers in HUC# 0313000 I

bttp://www.epa.gov/cgi-binlsur1searcb2.pl?geography=streamsperhuc&vaiue=0313000l

Surf Your Watersh

FIND YOURPLACE:

. ..3...U.!I

. lt<~<:At.ATION ,,,...,.,,

...

~:!'JOJKtf ll>1fO~tAATION

M.4FU5AAR'!'

Rivers and Streams in HUC# 03130001
o Big Creek o Blue Creek o Camp Creek o Center Creek o Chattahoochee River o Chestatee River o Deep Creek o Duke Creek o Flat Creek o Glade Creek o Hazel Creek o Ivy Creek o Lake Sidney Lanier o Level Creek o Little River o Mossy Creek o Nancy Creek o Peachtree Creek o Sautee Creek o Smith Creek o Soque River o Swannee Creek o Tesnatee Creek o Town Creek o Ward Creek o Yahoola Creek

9/4/98 8:51 AM

Surf Your Watershed- Watershed Information ...
Surf Your Watersh
News Plashes:
Middle Chattahoochee-Lake Hardin
USGS Cataloging Unit: 03 130002

Page 1 of3
AateYour
,~.aiersttec~
:(),'i :)f:i.(L"I'.)N) ~.fJD tf"fO~.;v"t,.: 1'1)!'; ).. ~~~i.H J~~G~t)1,;'.[h>~<
~~-.......................... .
MA> tll>~il'l'

La .
.... .~

Places Involving this Watenbed

Environmental Profile

Find general information integratedfor this specific watershed

States: Alabama Georgia

Assessments of Watenhed Health
Index ofWatershed Indicators (provided by EPA)

Counties: Carroll

Unified Watershed Assessments (UWA) (provided by States and Tribes)
Environmental Information

Chambers Clayton Cobb Coweta Douglas Fulton

River Corridors and Wetlands Restoration Efforts Environmental Web Sites:
Real Time Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts)
Toxic releases (Source:TRI- Toxic Release Inventory)

Harris Heard Lee
Meriwether Muscogee Paulding

Hazardous Wastes (Source: RCRA- Resource Conservation Recovery Act)
Superfund Sites (Source: CERCLA -Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act)
EnviroMapper for Watersheds- (interactive mapping tool)

Randolph

Russell Talbot Troup

Water
Find informationfocused on waterfor this specific watershed

Metropolitan Areas: Atlanta Columbus

Rivers and Streams in this Watershed: 25 (provided by EPA's first River Reach File) Lakes in the Watershed (Coming soon) River and stream miles:

http://www.epa.gov/surf2/hucs/03130002/

12/22/98

SurfYour Watershed-- Watershed Information ...

Page2 of3

Columbus

3690.7 total river miles

Nominated American Heritage Rivers: Chattahoochee

2418.3 perennial river miles 29% of total rivers and streams have been surveyed 562 miles meet all designated uses

River
This hue's principal aquifer is No Principal Aquifer which is 3039 square

Other Watersheds:

miles and has a rock type ofN/A

upstream Upper
Chattahoochee

Nonpoint Source Projects in this watershed (Funded under Section 319(h) ofthe Clean Water Act) Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts)

downstream

Community Water Sources (Source: SDWIS Safe Drinking Water

Middle

Information System)

Chattahoochee-Walter Water Dischargers (Source: PCS - Permit Compliance System)

F.G

Information provided by the United States Geological Survey (USGS):

Large

1!411 rf!X)

Ecosystems: Gulf ofMexico
Program
Southern Appalachians

Stream Flow (Source: USGS) Science in Your Watershed Historical Water Data Water use (1990}: Information about the amount of water used and

Assessment (SAA) Southern
Appalachian Man

how it is used Selected USGS Abstracts

Land and the Biosphere
Reserve Area

(SAMAB) Landscape-Scale Assessment Southern Appalachian

Find watershed informationfocused on land characteristics Land Characteristics:
Area: 3037.11 sq mi; perimeter: 301.14 mi Landscape Indicators: 5% urban, 5% forest, 7% crop use (overlapping, sum

Mountains
Initiative(SAMI)

could be more than 100% )

People

Find out about local actions in this watershed:

American Indian Tribes (Source: US Census): None Known

National Watershed Network (provided by Conservation Technology

Information Center) li4ii tl't.'



Citizen-based Groups at work in this Watershed (Provided by Adopt Your

Watershed)

Join now

Air
Find informationfocused on airfor this watershed:

Facilities regulated by EPA (pro\ided by Envirofacts) Air (Source: AIRS)

http://www.epa.gov/surf2/hucs/03130002/

12/22;<}8

Rivers in HUC# 03130002

Page I of I

Surf Your Watersh

i&.ateYour #~--rshed
KNN f..l~:;CFiSitil\:S.
.\D-tl H~F~rRMAHON
,?-t%Y. ( tc: ,,.~~ (J~ :\\,1\1 J(l,..;: ....,...........~..................~... ~
M.'>>'Uilil.'>.i>l)'

Rivers and Streams in HUC# 03130002

Anneewakee Creek Bear Creek Camp Creek Cedar Creek Chattahoochee River Dog Creek Flat Shoal Creek Halawakee Creek Hillabatchee Creek Lake Harding Long Cane Creek Mountain Creek Mulberry Creek NewRiver Noses Creek Osanippa Creek Oseligee Creek Snake Creek Standing Boy Creek Sweetwater Creek Wahoo Creek Wehadkee Creek West Pont Lake Whooping Creek Yellowjacket Creek

http://www. epa.gov/cgi-bin/surf2/search. pl?geography=streamsperhuc&value=03I30002

I2/22J98

)CT Flint

hnp:/twww.cpa.gov/surliHUCStbucinfo/03130005'

Surf Your Waters
WATERSHED ENVIRONMENTAL PROFJ \tltlii.IM.i~~~!~~~~f .................................~........... .

News Flashes:

find out wh

FIND YOUR PLACE:
,_ _::::: ::: :::::::::::: ::::: ::1
lOm ''~ SWiJ.IO~<iS 'I.U!l IN~O:!iM,ll !l(>f< <.tAAC:t-! ~~~ft:>~M."'l"lm-1

Upper Flint
USGS Cataloging Unit: 03130005

Places Involving this Watershed
States: Georgia
Counties: Clayton Coweta Crawford Fayette Fulton Harris
~
Lamar
Macon Marion Meriwether Monroe Peach
Pike Schley Spalding Talbot Tavlor

Environmental Profile
Find general information integratedfor this specific watershed
Index ofWatershed Indicators Additional information provided by States and Tribes River Corridors and Wetlands Restoration Efforts Environmental Web Sites:
o Real Time Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts)
o Toxic releases (Source:TRI- Toxic Release Inventory) o Hazardous Wastes (Source: RCRA- Resource
Conservation Recovery Act) o Superfund Sites (Source: CERCLA -Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act)
Water
Find informationfocused on waterfor this specific watershed
Rivers and Streams in this Watershed: 18 (provided by EPA's first River Reach File) Lakes in the Watershed (Coming soon) River and stream miles:
o 21% oftotal rivers and streams have been surveyed

914198 8:52AM

Upper Flint

Upson
Metropolitan Areas:
Atlanta
Macon Columbus
Nominated American Heritage Rivers: None
Other Watersheds: upstream None
downstream 03130006
Large Ecosystems:
Gulfof
Mexico Program

http:JJwww.epa.gowsuriirtucs,nucuu.o,O;)l300v.
21% oftotal rivers and streams have been surveyed o 535 miles meet all designated uses Nonpoint Source Projects in this watershed (Funded under Section 319{h) ofthe Clean Water Act) Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts)
o Community Water Sources (Source: SDWIS Safe
Drinking Water Information System) o Water Dischargers (Source: PCS -Permit Compliance
System) Information provided by the United States Geological Survey (USGS): Ei!~ii "" l
o Stream Flow (Source: USGS) o Science in Your Watershed o Historical Water Data o Water Resources o Water use (1990): Information about the amount ofwater
used and how it is used o Selected USGS Abstracts
Land
Find watershed informationfocused on land characteristics Land Characteristics:
Area: 2,648.01 sq mi; perimeter: 258.65 mi Landscape Indicators: 2% urban, 92% forest, 20% crop use (overlapping, sum could be more than I00% )
People
Find out about local actions in this watershed:
American Indian Tribes (Source: US Census): None Known National Watershed Network (provided by Conservation Technology Information Center) l:t3iG~) Citizen-based Groups at work in this Watershed (Provided by Adopt Your Watershed) Join now
Air
Find informationfocused on airfor this watershed:
Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts) o Air (Source: AIRS)

EPA HOME ICONTACTS IDISCLAIMER!~ I~ ICOMMENTS TEXT VERSION ISURF HOME

2of2

9/4/98 8:5.. i

"TS in HUC# 03130005

http://www.epa.gov/cgi-binlsurt7search2.pl?geography=streamsperhuc&value=03 130005

Surf Jour Waters.

FIND YOURPLACE:
I : : ::::::::_::::::_

Rivers and Streams in HUC# 03130005
o Auchumpkee Creek o Cedar Creek o Elkins Creek o Flint River o Horse Creek o Lazer Creek o Line Creek o Morning Creek o Patsiliga Creek o Pigeon Creek o Potatoe Creek o Red Oak Creek o Swift Creek o Tobler Creek o Turkey Creek o lncohatchee Creek o White Oak Creek o Whitewater Creek

9/4/98 8:53 AM

http://www.epa.goVJsurf/HUCSfnucinfo/03150 1011

Surf Your Waters
Mlf,IHI.""fL~J:fVIRONMENTAL PROFI
....,,,.,.....,..,.,:...~l~~~ij~.........................................................................

News Flashes:

find out wh

FIND YOUR PLACE:
L..,,_~- :::: : : : :~
. JO~:> ;:J~SOJ:>510~<i 'I.UGJ l:<'<m~M,1s11{>!<1
. '-iAA.Ct! . ~~~fOi.ltAAr18N

Conasauga
USGS Cataloging Unit: 03150101

Places Involving this Watershed
States: Georgia Tennessee
Counties: Catoosa Fannin Gilmer Gordon Murrav Walker Whitfield Bradley Polk
Metropolitan Areas: Chattanooga
Nominated American Heritage
Riven:

Environmental Profile
Find general information integratedfor this specific watershed

Index ofWatershed Indicators Additional information provided by States and Tribes River Corridors and Wetlands Restoration Efforts Environmental Web Sites:
o Real Time
Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts) o Toxic releases (Source:TRI- Toxic Release Inventory) o Hazardous Wastes (Source: RCRA- Resource Conservation Recovery Act) o Superfund Sites (Source: CERCLA -Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act)

Water
Find information focused on waterfor this specific watershed

Rivers and Streams in this Watershed: l l (provided by EPA's

first River Reach File)

Lakes in the Watershed (Coming soon)

River and stream miles:



o 33% oftotal rivers and streams have been surveyed

...-2

914198 8:49AM .

Conasauga

http://www.epa.gov/surf!HUCS/hucinfo/0315(}10

None
Other Watersheds: upstream None
downstream 03150103
Large Ecosystems:
Gulfof
Mexico Program Southern Appalachians Assessment
(SAA)
Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere
Reserve Area
(SAMAB) Landscape-Scale
Assessment
Southern Appalachian Mountains Initiative (SAM!)

0 33% oftotal rivers and streams have been surveyed o 316 miles meet all designated uses Nonpoint Source Projects in this watershed (Funded under Section 319(h) of the Clean Water Act) Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts) o Community Water Sources (Source: SD'WIS Safe
Drinking Water Information System) o Water Dischargers (Source: PCS -Permit Compliance
System) Information provided by the United States Geological Survey (USGS): r:;:~U!t~l
o Stream Flow (Source: USGS) o Science in Your Watershed o Historical Water Data o Water Resources o Water use (1990): Information about the amount ofwater
used and how it is used o Selected USGS Abstracts
Land
Find watershed informationfocused on land characteristics Land Characteristics:
Area: 729.72 sq mi; perimeter: 128.14 mi Landscape Indicators: 2% urban, 97% forest, 4% crop use (overlapping, sum could be more than 100% )

People
Find out about local actions in this watershed:

American Indian Tribes (Source: US Census): None Known National Watershed Network (provided by Conservation Technology Information Center) l:t3ii EF"A) Citizen-based Groups at work in this Watershed (Provided by Adopt Your Watershed) Join now

Air
Find informationfocused on airfor this watershed:

Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts) o Air (Source: AIRS)

EPA HOME ICONTACTS IDISCLAIMER IABOt.rr IHELP ICOMMENTS TEXT VERSION ISURF HOME

2of2

' '
9/4/98 8:49. ,;;,,

ers m rtUClf 03150101

bnp:liwww.epa.govicgi-bin/surf/search2.pl?geograpby=streamsperbuc&vaiue=03150 10 1

Surf Your Watersh

FIND YOURPLACE:
[-~~-~ ::::::::::~

Rivers and Streams in HUC# 03150101
o Coahuila River o Consauga River o Coosawattee River o Haig Creek o Holly Creek o Jacks Creek o Mill Creek o Old Fort Creek o Rock Creek o Sugar Creek o Sumac Creek

9/4/98 8:50AM

Surf Your Watershed- Watershed Information ...
Surf Your Watersh
News Plashes:
Coosawattee
USGS Cataloging Unit: 03150102

Page 1 of3
&atevour
~aiershect
~(J ::.-~ ~t';Ct...'-;~ t-..... NS l(!J::) t:t~PO~Mc\TI:.)!-.: .~~~it~ v.t~G~M..~(t<>~< -MA'"f~'"t'"i;AA-u;,~--

Places Involving Environmental Profile
this Watenbed
Find general information integratedfor this specific watershed

States: Georgia

Assessments of Watershed Health Index ofWatershed Indicators (provided by EPA)

Counties: Bartow

Unified Watershed Assessments (UWA) (provided by States and Tribes) Environmental Information

Cherokee Dawson Fannin Gilmer Gordon Murray

River Corridors and Wetlands Restoration Efforts Environmental Web Sites:
Real Time Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts)
Toxic releases (Source:TRI- Toxic Release Inventory)

Pickens

Hazardous Wastes (Source: RCRA- Resource Conservation

Metropolitan Areas: Atlanta

Recovery Act) Superfund Sites (Source: CERCLA -Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act}

Nominated

EnviroMapper for Watersheds- (interactive mapping tool)

American Heritage

Water

Riven: None

Find informationfocused on waterfor this specific watershed
Rivers and Streams in this Watershed: !Q (provided by EPA's first River Reach

Other Watenbeds: upstream

File) Lakes in the Watershed (Coming soon) River and stream miles:

None

1381.6 total river miles

http://www.epa.gov/sur2/hucs/03150102/

12/22198

SurfYour Watershed- Watershed Infonnation ...

Page2 of3

downstream Oostanaula

I 000.3 perennial river miles I5% oftotal rivers and streams have been surveyed I99 miles meet all designated uses

Large

Ecosystems: This hue's principal aquifer is No Principal Aquifer which is 615 square miles

Gulfof Mexico

and has a rock type ofN/A

Program Southern
Appalachians Assessment

Nonpoint Source Projects in this watershed (Funded under Section 319(h) of the Clean Water Act) Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts)

(SAA)

Community Water Sources (Source: SDWIS Safe Drinking Water

Southern Appalachian Manandthe Biosphere

Information System) Water Dischargers (Source: PCS - Permit Compliance System)
Infonnation provi4ed by the United States Geological Survey (USGS): l:f:UCED

Reserve Area

(SAMAB) Landscape-Scale Assessment Southern Appalachian

Stream Flow (Source: USGS) Science in Your Watershed Historical Water Data Water use (I990): Information about the amount ofwater used and how

Mountains Initiative (SAMI)

it is used Selected USGS Abstracts

Land
Find watershed informationfocused on land characteristics Land Characteristics:
Area: 855.43 sq mi; perimeter: 148.95 mi
Landscape Indicators: 0% urban, 0% forest, 2% crop use (overlapping, sum could be more than I00% ) .

People
Find out about local actions in this watershed:

American Indian Tribes (Source: US Census): None Known National Watershed Network (provided by Conservation Technology Infonnation Center) lf3iM) Citizen-based Groups at work in this Watershed (Provided by Adopt Your Watershed) Join now

Air
Find informationfocused on airfor this watershed: .

Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts) Air (Source: AIRS)

EPA HOME ICONTACTS i D!SCL:\JMER IABOUT IHELP ICOMMENTS TEXI VERSION I SURF HOME
http://www.epa.gov/surf2/hucs/031 SO I 02/

12/22i98

Rivers in HUC# 03150102

Page 1 of1

Surf Your Watersh

i.&:ateYour
J-~atershed
~0'~~ ();~0))~1 (i1\:S.
nOO INF~r. .").l{f~Art{.<N
,~ M~ ( ~ tt<:t 0~:\\At J(l, ..... _...~
M.>' Uflf.l.<'.l>!)'

Rivers and Streams in HUC# 03150102
Boardtown Creek Cartecay River Carters Lake Cedar Creek Clear Creek Consauga River Coosawattee River E Mountaintown Creek Ellijay River Lick Creek Mountaintown Creek Pine Log Creek Salacoa Creek Scarecorn Creek Talis Creek Talking Rock Creek

http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/sur2/search:pl?geography=streamsperhuc&value=03 150102

12/22. qg

SurfYour Watershed- Watershed Information ...
Surf Your Watersh
News Flashes:
Oostanaula
USGS Cataloging Unit: 03150103

Page 1 of3
li.lkateYour
~ateBhed
~(J ::-4 ::.,t!,(U;<.. t{iNS lH;O lfvF'OftM~710.~~
t ~f ~~it~ j~~ G~M.A h)'~<
_.._y,._.......................... .,.,..,..,.....- . MA~ Ut>RMI"f

t
. \
\'\ . '

E 1 1 fi Places Involviog
this Watenhed

llVlfOntnenta pfO 1 e

Find general information integratedfor this specific watershed

States: Georgia

Assessments of Watershed Health Index ofWatershed Indicators (provided by EPA)

Counties: Bartow

Unified Watershed Assessments (UWA) (provided by States and Tribes) Environmental Information

Chattooga Floyd Gordon Walker Whitfield
Metropontan Areas: Atlanta Chattanooga

River Corridors and Wetlands Restoration Efforts Environmental Web Sites:
Real Time Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts)
Toxic releases (Source:TRI- Toxic Release Inventory) Hazardous Wastes (Source: RCRA- Resource Conservation
Recovery Act) Superfund Sites (Source: CERCLA -Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act)

Nominated American

EnviroMapper for Watersheds- (interactive mapping tool)

Heritage Riven:

Water

None

Find informationfocused on waterfor this specific watershed

Other Watenheds: upstream

Rivers and Streams in this Watershed: 1 (provided by EPA's first River Reach
File) Lakes in the Watershed (Coming soon)

Conasauga

River and stream miles:

Coosawattee

997.2 total river miles

http://www.epa.gov/surt2/hucs/03150103/

12/22/98

SurfYour Watershed- Watershed Information ...

Page2 of3

downstream Up,perCoosa

54I.2 perennial river miles I5% oftotal rivers and streams have been surveyed 63 miles meet all designated uses

Large

Ecosystems: This hue's principal aquifer,Js Valley and Ridge aquifers which is 430 square

Gulfof Mexico

miles and has a rock type of Sandstone and carbonate-rock aquifers

Program Southern
Appalachians Assessment

Nonpoint Source Proiects in this watershed (Funded under Section 3I9(h) of the Clean Water Act) Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts}

(SAA)

Community Water Sources (Source: SDWIS Safe Drinking Water

Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere

Information System) Water Dischargers (Source: PCS -Permit Compliance System)
Information provided by the United States Geological Survey (USGS): I:J:Ji(,,.A'

Reserve Area

(SAMAB) Landscape-Scale Assessment Southern Appalachian

Stream Flow (Source: USGS) Science in Your Watershed Historical Water Data Water use (1990): Information about the amount ofwater used and how

Mountains

it is used

Initiative
(SAMI)

Selected USGS Abstracts

Land
Find watershed information focused on land characteristics Land Characteristics: Area: 553.81 sq mi; perimeter: 115.69 mi Landscape Indicators: 2% urban, 2% forest, 5% crop use (overlapping, sum could be more than I00% )

People
Find out about local actions in this watershed:

American Indian Tribes (Source: US Census): None Known National Watershed Network (provided by Conservation Technology Information Center) 1#;4ii ftX) Citizen-based Groups at work in this Watershed (Provided by Adopt Your Watershed) Join now

Air
Find information focused on airfor this watershed:

Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts) Air (Source: AIRS)

EPA HOME ICONTACTS I DI$Cl.AJMER IABOtrr IHELP ICOMMENTS
TEXT VERSION I SURF HOME
http://www.epa.gov/surfl/hucs/03I50 I 03/

I2/22/98

Rivers in HUC# 03150103

Page 1 ofl

Surf Your Watersh

iA:ateYour '*'~aterstted
.K>lN f.>,:i(t::>Stvi\:S Afr:D l~~F\:..1-Rr~AHON ,l 0\li (I< 1~1 0~ :\\"-I J(t;
!A.>~ U!lf<.O.J>!)'

Rivers and Streams in HUC# 03150103

Armuchee Creek Etowah River Heath Creek Johns Creek Little Armuchee Cre~k Oostanaula River Oothk:alooga Creek

http://www. epa.gov/cgi-bin/sur2/search. pl?geography=streamsperhuc&value=03150 103

12/22/98

News Plashes:
Etowah
USGS Cataloging Unit: 03150104

http://www.epa.gov/surf!HUCS/hucinfo/03150 1041

find out wh

FIND YOUR PLACE:

[:::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::]

. .

lO~~
.

;:-.!S(~:iSIO,~.....S........

. :um l:t'<~O~MMWI<l

. . . . . <.~All:C>-! l~<ft:>~M..i>rlill'l

Places Involving this Watershed
States: Georgia
Counties: Bartow Cherokee Cobb Dawson Fannin Floyd Forsyth Fulton Gilmer
Haralson
Lumpkin Paulding Pickens Polk Union
Metropolitan Areas:

Environmental Profile
Find general information integratedfor this specific watershed
Index ofWatershed Indicators Additional information provided by States and Tribes River Corridors and Wetlands Restoration Efforts Environmental Web Sites:
o Real Time Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts)
o Toxic releases (Source:TRI- Toxic Release Inventory) o Hazardous Wastes (Source: RCRA- Resource
Conservation Recovery Act) o Superfund Sites (Source: CERCLA -Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act)
Water
Find informationfocused on waterfor this specific watershed
Rivers aqd Streams in this Watershed: 24 (provided by EPA's first River Reach File) Lakes in the Watershed (Coming soon) River and stream miles:
o 15% oftotal rivers and streams have b~n surveyed

9/4/98 8:45AM

Etowah

http://'www.epa.gov/surf/HUCS/hucinfo/03150 ~n

Atlanta
Nominated American Heritage Rivers: Coosa River Basin
Other Watersheds: upstream None downstream 03150105
Large Ecosystems: Gulfof Mexico Program Southern Appalachians Assessment (SAA) Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere Reserve Area (SAMAB) Landscape-Scale Assessment Southern Appalachian Mountains Initiative (SAMI)

o 15% of total rivers and streams have been surveyed o 187 miles meet all designated uses Nonpoint Source Projects in this watershed (Funded under Section 319(h) ofthe Clean Water Act) Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts) o Community Water Sources (Source: SDWIS Safe
Drinking Water Information System) o Water Dischargers (Source: PCS -Permit Compliance
System) Information provided by the United States Geological Survey (USGS): lf.Eji EPii)
o Stream Flow (Source: USGS) o Science in Your Watershed o Historical Water Data o Water Resources o Water use (1990): Information about the amount ofwater
used and how it is used o Selected USGS Abstracts
Land
Find watershed information focused on land characteristics Land Characteristics:
Area: 1,857.62 sq mi; perimeter: 251.04 mi Landscape Indicators: 2% urban, 96% forest, 7% crop use (overlapping, sum could be more than 100% )
People
Find out about local actions in this watershed:
American Indian Tribes (Source: US Census): None Known National Watershed Network (provided by Conservation Technology Information Center) lii!i(E~>:.) Citizen-based Groups at work in this Watershed (Provided by Adopt Your Watershed) Join now

Air
Find information focused on airfor this watershed:
Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts) o Air (Source: AIRS)

EPA HOME ICONTACTS IDISCLAIMER IABOUT IHELP ICOMMENTS TEXT VERSION I SURF HOME

2of2

9/4/98 8:45 A ,;,

=rs m HLiC;r 03150104

hnp:iiwww.epa.govicgi-binisurfisearch2.pl?geography=streamsperhuc&value=03150104

Surf Your Watersh

FIND YOURPLACE:
r::::::::: :: : ::::::::::_

Rivers and Streams in HUC# 03150104
o Allatoona Res o Amicalola Creek o BluffCreek o Canton Creek o Cochrans Creek o Copper Sandy Creek o Etowah River o Euharlee Creek o Hills Creek . o Little Amicalola Creek o Little River o Long Swamp Creek o Mountain Creek o Noonday Creek o Oostanaula River o Pettit Creek o Pumpkinvine Creek o Raccoon Creek o Rock Creek o Settingdown Creek o Sharp Creek o Shoal Creek o Spring Creek o Two Run Creek

914198 8:46AM

Surf Your Watershed -- Watershed Information ...

Page 1 of3

..... 0.aer nA ~_~ ~ Af~Mf
Surf Your Watersh .
News Plashes:

~:no: t(J:-4 ~f';,(t...,~t~.>NS IHJ0 U'<-~0~!\li.l,.TI"O!';
- - - '.. E~RiU j~JG~fi.'Vfh.,h:: MA~ Ut>~!l"(

Upper Tallapoosa
USGS Cataloging Unit: 03150108

,. .. . ';~,,, ,
-='
-:.
~.

E 1 1 PtlhaicseWs Iantveonlhviendg OVlfOntnenta pfOfi1 e

Find general information integratedfor this specific watershed

States: Alabama
Georgia

Assessments of Watershed Health Index of Watershed Indicators (provided by EPA) Unified Watershed Assessments (UWA) (provided by States and Tribes)

Counties:

Environmental Information

Carroll Clay Cleburne Haralson Heard Paulding

River Corridors and Wetlands Restoration Efforts Environmental Web Sites:
Real Time Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts)
Toxic releases (Source:TRI- Toxic Release Inventory)

Polk Randolph

Hazardous Wastes (Source: RCRA- Resource Conservation Recovery Act)

Metropolitan Areas:

Superfund Sites (Source: CERCLA -Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act)

Atlanta

EnviroMapper for Watersheds- (interactive mapping tool)

Nominated American

Water

Heritage Find information focused on water for this specific watershed

Riven: None

Rivers and Streams in this Watershed:~ (provided by EPA's first River Reach File)

Other

Lakes in the Watershed (Coming soon)

Watenheds: River and stream miles:

http://www.epa.gov/surt2/hucs/03150 108/

12/22/98

Surf Your Watershed- Watershed Information ...

Page 2 of3

upstream None

1772.7 total river miles 1332.8 perennial river miles

downstream Middle
Tallapoosa
Large Ecosystems:

9 % of total rivers and streams have been surveyed 150 miles meet all designated uses
This hue's principal aquifer is No Principal Aquifer which is 1399 square miles and has a rock type ofN/A

Gulfof Mexico Program
Southern Appalachians

Nonpoint Source Projects in this watershed (Funded under Section 319(h) of the Clean Water Act) Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts)
Community Water Sources (Source: SDWIS Safe Drinking Water

Assessment (SAA) Southern Appalachian

Information System)
Water Dischargers (Source: PCS- Permit Compliance System) Information provided by the United States Geological Survey (USGS): 1+30 "" l

Man and the

Biosphere Reserve Area
(SAMAB)
Landscape-Scale Assessment

Stream Flow (Source: USGS) Science in Your Watershed Historical Water Data Water use (1990): Information about the amount of water used and how

Southern

it is used

Appalachian Mountains

Selected USGS Abstracts

Initiative (SAMI)

Land

Find watershed informationfocused on land characteristics Land Characteristics:

Area: 1405.89 sq mi; perimeter: 174.23 mi

Landscape Indicators: I% urban, I% forest, 2% crop use (overlapping, sum

could be more than IOOO/o.)

People
Find out about local actions in this watershed:

American Indian Tribes (Source: US Census): None Known National Watershed Network (provided by Conservation Technology
Information Center) 1311 '""Al
Citizen-based Groups at work in this Watershed (Provided by Adopt Your Watershed) Join now

Air.
Find information focused on airfor this watershed:

Facilities regulated by EPA (provided by Envirofacts) Air (Source: AIRS)

EPA HOME ICONTACTS IDISCI..AIMER I ABOUT I HELP I COMMENTS
http://www.epa.gov/surf2/hucs/03I50I 08/

12/2298

Rivers in HUC# 03150108

Page 1 of1

Surf Your Watersh

i&.ateYour
i~"'Watershed
-~')lN (.1~~(~)}Sif..t1\,;S.
.'.!Dfl thw;~o:...1-Rt<':A.HON
_ , ~~i31X(tc 1"dU~:\.t..J\1J(l~')
......................................... '''-'~' tlflf<..... y

Rivers and Streams in HUC# 03150108

Beach Creek BearCreek Big Indian Creek Brooks Creek Buffalo Creek Cane Creek Chulafinnee Creek Dyne Creek Kelley Creek Ketchepedrakee Creek Little River Little Tallapoosa River
C>wen Creek ':.iney Cree.t :.ilas c~eek - ::dlanc_:~osa R1"~

http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/sur2/search.pl?geography=streamsperhuc&value=031 50108

12/22198