Appendixes

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

---

 

Appendix A

Table A-1. Relevant Cause/Stressor Codes from the Waterbody System for Classifying Pollutants.

CODE	TYPE	CODE	TYPE
0000	Cause Unknown	0750	Sulfates
0100	Unknown Toxicity	0800	Other Inorganics
0200	Pesticides	0900	Nutrients
0300	Priority Organics	0910	Phosphorus
0400	Nonpriority Organics	0920	Nitrogen
0410	PCBs	0990	Other Nutrients
0420	Dioxins	1000	pH
0500	Metals	1100	Siltation
0510	Arsenic	1200	BOD/Dissolved Oxygen
0520	Cadmium	1300	Salinity/Total Dissolved Solids/Chlorides/Sulfates
0530	Copper	1400	Thermal Modifications
0540	Chromium	1600	Habitat Alterations (other than flow)
0550	Lead	1700	Pathogens
0560	Mercury	1900	Oil and Grease
0570	Selenium	2100	Suspended Solids
0580	Zinc	2210	Excessive Algal Growth/Chlorophyll α
0600	Ammonium (un-ionized)	2400	Total Toxics
0700	Chlorine	2500	Turbidity
0720	Cyanide

Note: Bold type indicates a major cause category; regular type indicates a subcategory.

---

Appendix B

Table B-1. Impairment Source Categories (with National Codes from the Waterbody System).

Code	Source of Impairment
0100	Industrial Point Sources
0110 0120	Major Industrial Point Sources Minor Industrial Point Sources
0200	Municipal Point Sources
0210 0212 0214 0220 0222 0224 0230	Major Municipal Point Sources (dry and/or wet weather discharges) Major Municipal Point Sources (dry weather discharges Major Municipal Point Sources (wet weather discharges) Minor Municipal Point Sources (dry and/or wet weather discharges) Minor Municipal Point Sources (dry weather discharges) Minor Municipal Point Sources (wet weather discharges) Package Plants (Small Flows)
0400 0500 0900	Combined Sewer Overflow Collection System Failure Domestic Wastewater Lagoon
1000	Agriculture
1050	Crop-Related Sources
1100 1200 1300	Nonirrigated Crop Production Irrigated Crop Production Specialty Crop Production (e.g., horticulture, citrus, nuts, fruits)
1350	Grazing-Related Sources
1400 1410 1420 1500 1510 1520	Pasture Grazing - Riparian and/or Upland Pasture Grazing - Riparian Pasture Grazing - Upland Range Grazing - Riparian and/or Upland Range Grazing - Riparian Range Grazing - Upland
1600	Intensive Animal Feeding Operations
1620 1640 1700	Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs; permitted, PS) Confined Animal Feeding Operations (NPS) Aquaculture
2000	Silviculture
2100 2200 2300 2400	Harvesting, Restoration, Residue Management Forest Management (e.g., pumped drainage, fertilization, pesticide application) Logging Road Construction/Maintenance Silviculture Point Sources
3000	Construction
3100 3200	Highway/Road/Bridge Construction Land Development
4000	Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
4100 4200 4300 4400 4500 4600	Nonindustrial Permitted Industrial Permitted Other Urban Runoff Illicit Connections/Illegal Hook-Ups/Dry Weather Flows Highway/Road/Bridge Runoff Erosion and Sedimentation
5000	Resource Extraction
5100 5200 5300 5400 5500 5600 5700 5800 5900 5950	Surface Mining Subsurface Mining Placer Mining Dredge Mining Petroleum Activities Mill Tailings Mine Tailings Acid Mine Drainage Abandoned Mining Inactive Mining
6000	Land Disposal
6100 6200 6300 6350 6400 6500 6600 6700	Sludge Wastewater Landfills Inappropriate Waste Disposal/Wildcat Dumping Industrial Land Treatment Onsite Wastewater Systems (Septic Tanks) Hazardous Waste Septage Disposal
7000	Hydromodification
7100 7200 7300 7400 7500	Channelization Dredging Dam Construction Upstream Impoundment Flow Regulations/Modifications
7550	Habitat Modification (other than Hydromodification)
7600 7700 7800	Removal of Riparian Vegetation Bank or Shoreline Modification/Destabilization Drainage/Filling of Wetlands
7900	Marinas and Recreational Boating
7910 7920	In-Water Releases On-Land Releases
8050	Erosion from Derelict Land
8100	Atmospheric Deposition
8200	Waste Storage/Storage Tank Leaks (above ground)
8250	Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
8300	Highway Maintenance and Runoff
8400	Spills (Accidental)
8500	Contaminated Sediments
8520	Debris and Bottom Deposits
8530	Internal Nutrient Cycling (primary lakes)
8540	Sediment Resuspension
8600	Natural Sources
8700	Recreation and Tourism Activities (other than Boating; see 7900)
8710	Golf Courses
8900	Salt Storage Sites
8910	Groundwater Loadings
8920	Groundwater Withdrawal
8950	Other
9000	Unknown Source
9050	Sources Outside State Jurisdiction or Borders

Appendix C

Table C-1. Hierarchy of Bioassessment Approaches for Evaluation of Aquatic Life Use Attainment Based on Resident Assemblages

Level of Info¹	Technical Components	Spatial/Temporal Coverage	Data Quality²	WBS Codes³
1	Visual observation of biota; reference conditions not used; simple documentation	Limited monitoring; extrapolations from other sites	Unknown or low precision and sensitivity; professional biologist not required	310, 320, 350, 322
2	One assemblage (usually invertebrates); reference conditions pre-established by professional biologist; biotic index or narrative evaluation of historical records	Limited to a single sampling; limited sampling for site-specific studies	Low to moderate precision and sensitivity; professional biologist may provide oversight	310, 320, 322, 350
3	Single assemblage usually the norm; reference condition may be site-specific, or composite of sites (e.g., regional); biotic index (interpretation may be supplemented by narrative evaluation of historical records)	Monitoring of targeted sites during a single season; may be limited sampling for site-specific studies; may include limited spatial coverage for watershed-level assessments	Moderate precision and sensitivity; professional biologist performs survey or provides training for sampling; professional biologist performs assessment.	310, 315, 320, 321, 330, 331, 350
4	Generally two assemblages, but may be one if high data quality; regional (usually based on sites) reference conditions used; biotic index (single dimension or multimetric index)	Monitoring during 1-2 sampling seasons; broad coverage of sites for either site-specific or watershed assessments; conducive to regional assessments using targeted or probabilistic design	High precision and sensitivity; professional biologist performs survey and assessment	310, 315, 320, 321, 330, 331, 340, 350

Note: Table is based on use in lotic systems. With some modification, these approaches would apply to other waterbody types.

¹ Level of information refers to rigor of bioassessment, where 1 = lowest and 4 = highest.
² Refers to ability of the ecological endpoints to detect impairment or to differentiate along a gradient of environmental conditions.
³WBS Assessment Type Codes from Table 1-1.

Source: Guidelines for Preparation of the Comprehensive State Water Quality Assessments (305(b) Reports) and Electronic Updates: Supplement, EPA 841-B-97-002B

Table C-2. Hierarchy of Habitat Assessment Approaches for Evaluation of Aquatic Life Use Attainment

Level of Info¹	Technical Components	Spatial/Temporal Coverage	Data Quality²	WBS Codes&usp3;
1	Visual observation of habitat characteristics; no true assessment; documentation of readily discernable land use characteristics that might alter habitat quality; no reference conditions	Sporadic visits; sites are mostly from road crossings or other easy access	Unknown or low precision and sensitivity; professional scientist (biologist, hydrologist) not required	365
2	Visual observation of habitat characteristics and simple assessment; use of land use maps for characterizing watershed condition; reference condition pre-established by professional scientist	Limited to annual visits and non-specific to season; generally easy access; limited spatial coverage and/or site-specific studies	Low precision and sensitivity; professional biologist or hydrologist not involved or only correspondence	370
3	Visual-based habitat assessment using standard operating procedures (SOPs); may be supplemented with quantitative measurements of selected parameters; conducted with bioassessment; data on land use compiled and used to supplement assessment; reference condition used as a basis for assessment	Assessment during a single season usually the norm; spatial coverage may be limited or broad and commensurate with biological sampling; assessment may be regional or site-specific	Moderate precision and sensitivity; professional biologist or hydrologist performs survey or provides oversight and training	375
4	Assessment of habitat based on quantitative measurements of instream parameters, channel morphology, and floodplain characteristics; conducted with bioassessment; data on land use compiled and used to supplement assessment; reference condition used as a basis for assessment	Assessment during 1-2 seasons; spatial coverage usually broad and commensurate with biological sampling; assessment may be regional or site-specific	High precision and sensitivity; professional biologist or hydrologist performs survey and assessment	380

Note: Table is based on use in lotic systems. With some modification, these approaches would apply to other waterbody types.

¹ Level of information refers to rigor of habitat assessment, where 1 = lowest and 4 = highest.
²Refers to ability of the habitat endpoints to detect impairment or to differentiate along a gradient of environmental conditions.
³WBS Assessment Type Codes from Table 1-1.

Source: Guidelines for Preparation of the Comprehensive State Water Quality Assessments (305(b) Reports) and Electronic Updates: Supplement, EPA 841-B-97-002B

Table C-3. Hierarchy of Toxicological Approaches and Levels for Evaluation of Aquatic Life Use Attainment

Level of Info¹	Technical Components	Spatial/Temporal Coverage	Data Quality²	WBS Codes³
1	Any one of the following: Acute or chronic WET Acute ambient Acute sediment	1-2 WET tests/yr or 1 ambient or sediment sample tested in a segment or site	Unknown/low; minimal replication used; laboratory quality or expertise unknown	510, 520, 530, 550
2	Any of the following: Acute or chronic ambient Acute sediment Acute and chronic WET for effluent-dominated system	3-4 WET tests/yr or 2 ambient or sediment samples tested in a segment or site at different times	Low/moderate--little replication used within a site; laboratory quality or expertise unknown or low	510, 520, 530, 540, 550
3	Any of the following: Acute and chronic WET for effluent-dominated system Chronic ambient or acute or chronic sediment	Monthly WET tests or total of 3 tests based on samples collected in a segment at 3 different times	Moderate/high--replication used; trained personnel and good laboratory quality	510, 520, 540, 550
4	Both of the following: Acute and chronic ambient and Acute or chronic sediment	4 tests in total based on samples collected in a segment at 4 different times including low flow conditions	High--replication used; trained personnel and good laboratory quality	530, 540, 550

¹ Level of information refers to rigor of toxicity testing, where 1 = lowest and 4 = highes
² Refers to ability of the toxicity testing endpoints to detect impairment or to differentiate along a gradient of environmental conditions
³ WBS Assessment Type Codes from Table 1-1.

Source: Guidelines for Preparation of the Comprehensive State Water Quality Assessments (305(b) Reports) and Electronic Updates: Supplement, EPA 841-B-97-002B

Table C-4. Hierarchy of Physical/Chemical Data Levels for Evaluation of Aquatic Life Use Attainment

Level of Info¹	Technical Components	Spatial/Temporal Coverage	Data Quality³	WBS Codes4
1	Any one of the following: Water quality monitoring using grab water sampling Water data extrapolated from an upstream or downstream station where homogeneous conditions are expected Monitoring data >5 years old without further validation Best professional judgment based on land use data, source locations	Low spatial and temporal coverage: Quarterly or less frequent sampling with limited period of record (e.g., 1 day) Limited data during key periods or at high or low flows (critical hydrological regimes)².	Unknown/Low	210, 220, 230, 240, 850, 150, 130
2	Any one of the following: Water quality monitoring using grab water sampling Rotating basin surveys involving multiple visits or automatic sampling Synthesis of existing or historical information on fish contamination levels Screening models based on loadings data (not calibrated or verified).	Moderate spatial and temporal coverage: Bimonthly or quarterly sampling during key periods (e.g., spring/ summer months Fish spawning seasons, including limited water quality data at high and low flows Short period of record over a period of days or multiple visits during a year or season.	Low/Moderate	210, 220, 222, 230, 240, 242, 260, 810, 180
3	Any one of the following: Composite or a series of grab water sampling used (diurnal coverage as appropriate) Calibrated models (calibration data <5 years old).	Broad spatial and temporal (long-term, e.g., align="left" > 3 years) coverage of site with sufficient frequency and coverage to capture acute events: Typically, monthly sampling during key periods (e.g., spring/ summer months, fish spawning seasons), multiple samples at high and low flows Lengthy period of record (sampling over a period of months).	Moderate/High	211, 222, 242, 250, 610
4	All of the following: Water quality monitoring using composite or series or grab samples (diurnal coverage as appropriate) Limited sediment quality sampling and fish tissue analyses at sites with high probability of contamination.	Broad spatial (several sites) and temporal (long-term, e.g., > 3 years) coverage of site with sufficient frequency and parametric coverage to capture acute events, chronic conditions, and all other potential P/C impacts Monthly sampling during key periods (e.g., spring/summer months Fish spawning seasons) including multiple samples at high and low flows Continuous monitoring.	High	231, 242, 250

Note: Physical refers to physical water parameters (e.g., temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, color, conductivity)

¹Level of information refers to rigor of physical/chemical sampling and analysis, where 1 = lowest and 4 = highest.

² Even a short period of record can indicate a high confidence of impairment based on P/C data; 3 years of data are not required to demonstrate impairment. For example, a single visit to a stream with severe acid mine drainage impacts (high metals, low pH) can result in high confidence of nonsupport. However, long-term monitoring may be needed to establish full support.

³ Refers to ability of the physical/chemical endpoints to detect impairment or to differentiate along a gradient of environmental conditions.

⁴ WBS Assessment Type Codes from Table 1-1.

Source: Guidelines for Preparation of the Comprehensive State Water Quality Assessments (305(b) Reports) and Electronic Updates: Supplement, EPA 841-B-97-002B

Table C-5. Typical Thresholds Used for Determining Use Support for Aquatic Life

Type of Assessment	Not Listed on 303(d)	Listed on 303(d)
	Fully Supporting	Partially Supporting	Not Supporting
Bioassessment (1)	Reliable data indicate functioning, sustainable biological assemblages (e.g., fish, macroinvertebrates, or algae) none of which has been modified significantly beyond the natural range of the reference condition.	At least one assemblage (e.g., fish, macroinvertebrates, or algae) indicates moderate modification of the biological community compared to the reference condition.	At least one assemblage indicates nonsupport. Data clearly indicate severe modification of the biological community compared to the reference condition.
Habitat Assessment (1)	Reliable data indicate natural channel morphology, substrate composition, bank/riparian structure, and flow regime of region. Riparian vegetation of natural types and of relatively full standing crop biomass (i.e., minimal grazing of disruptive pressure).	Modification of habitat slight to moderate usually due to road crossings, limited riparian zones because of encroaching land use patterns, and some watershed erosion. Channel modification slight to moderate.	Moderate to severe habitat alteration by channelization and dredging activities, removal of riparian vegetation, bank failure, heavy watershed erosion or alteration of flow regime.
Aquatic and Sediment Toxicity Methods(2)	No toxicity noted in either acute or chronic tests compared to controls or reference conditions.	No toxicity noted in acute tests, but may be present in chronic tests in wither slight amounts and/or infrequently within an annual cycle.	Toxicity noted in many tests and occurs frequently.
Physical/Chemical Methods (3) (Conventionals - dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature) (4)	For any one pollutant or stressor, criteria exceeded in 10 percent of measurements. In case of dissolved oxygen (DO), national ambient water quality criteria specify the recommended acceptable daily average and 7-day average minimums and the acceptable 7-day and 30-day averages. States should document the DO criteria being used for the assessment and should discuss any biases that may be introduced by the sampling program (e.g., grab sampling in waterbodies with considerable diurnal variation).	For any one pollutant, criteria exceeded in 11-25 percent of measurements. For DO, the Fully Supporting considerations apply.	For any one pollutant, criteria exceeded in > 25 percent of measurements. For DO, the Fully Supporting considerations apply.
Physical/Chemical Methods (3) (Toxicants - priority pollutants, metals,chlorine, and ammonia) (4)	For any one pollutant, no more than 1 exceedance of acute criteria (EPA's criteria maximum concentration or applicable State/Tribal criteria) within a 3-year period based on grab or composite samples and no more than 1 exceedance of chronic criteria (EPA's criteria continuous concentration or applicable State/Tribal criteria) within a 3-year period based on grab or composite samples.	For any one pollutant, acute or chronic criteria exceeded more than once within a 3-year period, but in 10 percent of samples.	For any one pollutant, acute or chronic criteria exceeded in > 10 percent of samples.

⁽¹⁾ Additional consideration for lakes: State lake managers should address more than one biological assemblage in making lake ALUS decisions. Regional patterns of lake water quality, morphometry (physical characteristics such as size, shape, and depth), and watershed characteristics should ideally be defined based on comparison to natural conditions using an ecoregion approach.

⁽²⁾ EPA recommends that information from toxicity tests be separated from the physical/chemical data. Appropriate sample collection is critical to ensure representative and accurate results. Chemical inert sampling equipment must be used and depth and/or width integrated composite samples should be considered for ALUS determination.

⁽³⁾ States are expected to apply the following guidance to whatever data types are available and to use a "worst case" approach where multiple types of data are available. If, for example, chemical data indicate full support but temperature data indicate impairment, the waterbody is considered impaired.

⁽⁴⁾ Special considerations for lakes: States should discuss their interpretation of DO, pH, and temperature standards for both epilimnetic and hypolimnetic waters. In addition, States should consider turbidity and lake bottom siltation.

⁽⁵⁾ At least 10 samples over a 3-year period are assumed to be taken. If fewer than 10 samples are available, the State should use discretion and consider other factors such as the number of pollutants having a single violation and the magnitude of the exceedance(s).

Special considerations regarding metals: EPA's policy is for the States to adopt and use the dissolved metal fraction to set and measure compliance with water quality standards, because dissolved metal more closely approximates the bioavailable fraction of metal in the water column than does total recoverable metal. In the absence of dissolved metals data and State criteria, States should continue to apply total recoverable metals criteria to total recoverable metals data because this is more conservative and thus protective of aquatic life. Historical metals data should be used with care. Concern about the reliability of the data are greatest below 5-10 ppb due to the possibility of contamination problems during sample collection and analysis.

Source: Guidelines for Preparation of the Comprehensive State Water Quality Assessments (305(b) Reports) and Electronic Updates: Supplement, EPA 841-B-97-002B

Appendix D

Related Federal Programs

Environmental Protection Agency

Water Quality Criteria and Standards Program

Water Quality Standards

Section 303(c) of the CWA establishes the basis for the current water quality standards program. Water quality standards serve as the foundation for the water quality based approach to pollution control and are a fundamental component of watershed management. Water quality standards are Federal, State, Territorial, or authorized Tribal law or regulation that (1) define the water quality goals of a water body or segment by designating the use or uses to be made of the water, (2) set criteria necessary to protect the uses; and (3) protect water quality through antidegradation provisions.

Water quality standards are essential to a wide range of surface water activities, including (1) setting and revising water quality goals for watersheds and/or individual water bodies, (2) monitoring water quality to provide information upon which water quality-based decisions will be made, (3) calculating TMDLs, waste load allocations (WLAs) for point sources of pollution, and load allocations (LAs) for natural background and nonpoint sources of pollution, (4) developing water quality management plans which prescribe the regulatory, construction, and management activities necessary to meet the water body goals, (5) calculating NPDES water quality-based effluent limitations for point sources, in the absence of TMDLs, WLAs, LAs, and/or water quality management plans, (6) preparing various reports and lists that document the condition of the State's, Territory's, or authorized Tribe's water quality, and (7) developing, revising, and implementing an effective section 319 management program which outlines the State's, Territory's or authorized Tribe's control strategy for nonpoint sources of pollution.

The CWA provides that EPA determine appropriate minimum levels of protection and provide national oversight for the criteria and standards program. States,Territories, and authorized Tribes have discretion to design their own programs and to establish levels of protection above national minimums. States, Territories, and authorized Tribes adopt water quality standards to protect public health or welfare, enhance the quality of water, and serve the purposes of the CWA.

Sections 101(a), 101(a)(2), and 303(c) of the CWA provide the authority for water quality standards. Generally, standards are used to:

• restore and maintain chemical, physical, and biological integrity of State, Territorial, and authorized Tribal waters,
• provide, wherever attainable, water quality for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water (i.e., fishable/swimmable), and
• consider the use and value of State, Territorial, and authorized Tribal waters for public water supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, recreation, agricultural and industrial purposes, and navigation (implemented by 40 CFR 131.2).

States, Territories, and authorized Tribes are required to specify appropriate water uses to be achieved and protected, taking into consideration the use and value of water for public water supplies, protection and propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife, recreation in and on the water, agricultural, industrial, and other purposes including navigation. The regulation also allows, but does not require, States, Territories, and authorized Tribes to identify more specificsub-categories of these general use categories.

Water Quality Criteria

Water quality criteria are levels of individual pollutants, water quality characteristics, or descriptions of conditions of a water body that, if met, will generally protect the designated use of the water. Water quality criteria guidance is developed by EPA under CWA section 304(a) to protect aquatic life and human health, and in some cases wildlife, from the deleterious effects of pollutants and other effects of pollution. There are three principal categories of water quality criteria: (1) criteria to protect human health, (2) criteria to protect aquatic life, and (3) criteria to protect wildlife. Within these broad categories, there are different types of criteria. For example, there are chemical-specific and microbiological criteria within the human health category while the aquatic life category includes chemical-specific criteria, toxicity criteria, biological criteria, sediment criteria and physical criteria such as habitat and flow balance. Water quality criteria developed under section 304(a) are based solely on data and scientific judgments on the relationship between pollutant concentrations and environmental and human health effects.

Criteria are expressed in either narrative or numeric forms and may be developed to apply generally or to apply to site-specific situations. Narrative criteria are descriptions of conditions necessary for the water body to attain its designated use and are often expressed as "free from" certain characteristics. Narrative criteria can be the basis for limiting toxicity in discharges and for controlling nuisance conditions, such as floating debris or other objectionable deposits. Numeric criteria are values expressed as levels, concentrations, toxicity units, or other numbers deemed necessary to protect designated uses.

CWA sections 303(a) through (c) require all States, Territories, and authorized Tribes to evaluate the need for water quality criteria to protect a designated use and then adopt water quality criteria (either EPA's or its own) sufficient to protect uses designated for State, Territorial, or authorized Tribal waters. When a water body is classified for more than one use, criteria necessary to protect the most sensitive use must be applied to the water body per 40 CFR 131.11(a).

EPA criteria under section 304(a) do not reflect consideration of economic impacts or the technological feasibility of meeting the chemical concentrations in ambient water. As discussed below, section 304(a) criteria are used by States, Territories, and authorized Tribes to establish water quality standards, and ultimately provide a basis for controlling discharges or releases of pollutants.

As part of the water quality standards triennial review process under section 303(c)(1), States, Territories, and authorized Tribes are responsible for maintaining and revising water quality standards. Section 303(c)(1) requires States, Territories, and authorized Tribes to review, and modify if appropriate, their water quality standards at least once every three years. If EPA determines that a new or revised standard is not consistent with the requirements of the CWA, or EPA determines that a revised standard is necessary to meet the requirements of the Act, section 303(c)(4) authorizes EPA to promulgate replacement water quality standards.

Watershed Programs

Water Quality Assessment Program (Clean Water Act Section 305(b))

CWA section 305(b) establishes a process for reporting information about the quality of the nation's water resources to EPA and Congress. Each State, Territory, authorized Tribe, and Interstate Commission develops a program to monitor the quality of its surface and ground waters and report the current status of water quality biennially to EPA. This information is compiled into a report to Congress. The 305(b) report allows EPA to:

• Determine the status of water quality.
• Identify water quality problems and trends.
• Evaluate the cause of poor water quality and the relative contributions of pollution sources.
• Report on the activities underway to assess and restore water quality.
• Determine the effectiveness of control programs.
• Ensure that pollution control programs are focused on achieving environmental results in an efficient manner.
• Determine the workload remaining in restoring waters with poor quality and protecting threatened waters.
• Use information from the lists of waters developed under sections 304(l) and 319 and continue to maintain and update the statutorily-required lists of waters identified under sections 303(d) and 314.

For each assessed waterbody, information is provided on the status of water quality, including designated uses and causes of nonattainment.

Nonpoint Source Program (Clean Water Act Section 319)

In 1987, Congress added sections 319 and 518 to the CWA to enable States, Territories, and authorized Tribes to address the problems caused by nonpoint source pollution. CWA section 319 established baseline requirements for State and territorial nonpoint source management programs and authorized national funding to support implementation of approved management programs. CWA section 518 authorized EPA to treat federally recognized Tribes in the same manner as States. CWA section 319 established a three-stage program whereby States, Territories, and authorized Tribes (1) conduct statewide (or reservation-wide) assessments of their waters to identify those which are either impaired or threatened because of nonpoint sources; (2) develop nonpoint source management programs to address the impaired or threatened waters identified in their nonpoint source assessments; and (3) implement the EPA approved nonpoint sources management programs.

Section 319(h) of the CWA is the principal source of EPA funding dedicated to nonpoint source control. It authorizes EPA to issue grants to States, Territories, and authorized Tribes to assist them in implementing management programs or portions of management programs which have been approved by EPA. Under section 319(h), Congress appropriates money to EPA for distribution to eligible States, Territories, and authorized Tribes based on an allocation formula. Section 518(f) authorizes EPA to grant up to one-third of one percent of national 319(h) program funds to Tribes. Since 1990, the United States has spent $100 million annually through the section 319 program.

Section 319(h) grants:

• Emphasize implementation of approved nonpoint source management programs.
• Identify priority actions that will be taken and an explanation of how these actions are related to the priority problems identified in the nonpoint source assessment report.
• Establish a realistic schedule and milestones for completing the priority actions identified.
• Emphasize pollution prevention mechanisms to control nonpoint sources.
• Emphasize watershed-based approaches to solving nonpoint source pollution.
• Provide monitoring and evaluation of program effectiveness.
• Emphasize interagency coordination with federal, State, and local agencies as well as interest groups.
• Describe previous accomplishments in addressing nonpoint source pollution with grant funds (if previous grant funds were received).

Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program

In November 1990, Congress enacted the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA). To more address the impacts of nonpoint source pollution on coastal water quality, Congress enacted section 6217, Protecting Coastal Waters (codified as 16 U.S.C. Section 1455b). Section 6217 requires each State with an approved Coastal Zone Management Program to develop and submit to EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) a Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program for approval. The purpose of the program "shall be to develop and implement management measures for nonpoint source pollution to restore and protect coastal waters, working in close conjunction with other State and local authorities." Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs are intended to serve as an update and expansion of existing nonpoint source management programs and are to be coordinated closely with existing coastal zone management programs.

Clean Lakes Program

CWA section 314 established the Clean Lakes Program. Historically, the Clean Lakes Program has been active in awarding grants for the study and restoration of publicly-owned lakes. States are encouraged to develop integrated water quality strategies that include lake and reservoir management, restoration, and protection activities. EPA provides financial assistance as available; however, greater emphasis is now on developing technical support material (e.g., a Lake and Reservoir Restoration Guidance Manual). In recent years funding for grants under the Clean Lakes Program has been combined with Section 319(h) (Nonpoint Source Program) funding.

Monitoring Program

Water quality monitoring is essential for an understanding of the condition of water resources and to provide a basis for effective policies that promote wise use and management of those resources. EPA is one of a large number of Federal, Tribal, State, and local agencies and private sector organizations that collect water quality information for purposes that can generally be divided into five categories: (1) status and trends; (2) detection of existing and emerging problems and setting priorities among them; (3) designing and implementing programs; (4) evaluating program or project success; and (5) emergency response monitoring. Federal agencies alone conduct approximately 141 separate monitoring programs across the country.

EPA also contributes to the national monitoring effort by supporting and cosponsoring (with USGS and other members) the National Monitoring Council. Formed in 1997, the Council is implementing a national strategic plan to achieve effective collection, interpretation, and presentation of water quality data that will improve the availability of existing information for decisionmaking at all levels of government. This integrated nationwide voluntary strategy will meet the nationwide objectives of various monitoring programs, make more efficient use of available resources, distribute information more effectively, and provide comparable data and consistent reporting of water quality status and trends. For more information about monitoring programs operated by EPA and other federal agencies, see the 1996 National Water Quality Inventory & Report to Congress, (EPA841-R-97-008).

Section 106 and 319 funds are added to State funds to support State monitoring programs. States are required to describe their monitoring programs in Section 106 work plans and agree to perform the monitoring necessary to comply with EPA/State Performance Partnership Agreements; thus, monitoring requirements are State-specific. States are also required to report the results of their EPA-funded monitoring in their biennial water quality assessment reports under Section 305(b) (see above).

EPA, working with States, has developed an outline for a recommended monitoring program. A comprehensive monitoring program includes general ambient monitoring and targeted monitoring to determine the effectiveness of individual projects and programs designed to protect waterbodies or control sources of pollution. Recommended elements of a State monitoring program include monitoring program objectives; a monitoring design description; written protocols; analytical laboratory support; quality assurance quality control procedures; data storage, management, and sharing; water resource assessment and reporting; training; and integration of work partners, including volunteer monitoring groups. Copies of the outline for effective State monitoring programs can be obtained by contacting the Monitoring Branch at: U.S. EPA (4503F), Office of Water, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.

National Estuary Program

Authorized by Congress in 1985, and formally established in 1987 by amendments to the CWA section 320, the National Estuary Program (NEP) builds upon the lessons of the Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, and other earlier programs and stresses a geographic, basin-wide approach to environmental management. The EPA Administrator selects estuaries for NEP participation following nomination by governors. NEP estuaries address the loss of aquatic habitats, toxic contamination of estuarine sediments, increases in nutrient levels, bacterial contamination, and hypoxia. As methods for assessing and successfully managing these estuaries are developed, lessons learned are communicated to the more than 150 estuaries nationally.

For approved estuaries, the Administrator convenes management conferences, a grouping of interested Federal, Regional, State, and local governments, affected industries, scientific and academic institutions, and citizen organizations. Management conferences strive for an open, consensus-building approach to defining program goals and objectives, identifying problems to address, and designing pollution prevention/control and resource management strategies to meet each objective. Management conferences are required to create and begin implementation of a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) designed to protect and restore the estuary.

Wetlands Program

Section 404 of the CWA establishes a program to regulate the discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. Activities in waters of the United States that are regulated under this program include fills, water resource projects (such as dams and levees), infrastructure development (such as highways and airports), and conversion of wetlands to uplands for farming and forestry. No discharge of dredged or fill material is permitted if there is a practicable alternative that is less damaging to the aquatic environment or if the nation's waters would be significantly degraded. When individuals apply for a permit, they must show that they have taken steps to avoid wetland impacts where practicable, minimized potential impacts to wetlands, and provided compensation for any unavoidable impacts through activities to restore or create wetlands.

EPA and the Corps jointly administer the 404 program. In addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and State resource agencies have important advisory roles. A Federal permit is required to discharge dredged or fill material into wetlands and other waters of the United States. Permit application and comments are reviewed by the Corps and other interested Federal and State agencies, organizations, and individuals. The Corps determines whether an Environmental Impact Statement is necessary (see NEPA compliance issues elsewhere in this document). Citizens may request that the Corps conduct a public hearing however, public hearings are not normally held. The Corps evaluates the permit application based on the comments received, as well as its own evaluation. The Corps prepares a Statement of Finding document to explain how the permit decision was made, which is made available to the public.

Approval of a section 404 permit to discharge dredged or fill material into wetlands or other waters of the United States is contingent on compliance with section 401 State Water Certification requirements. CWA §401 requires that the Corps obtain certification from the State or interstate water control agencies that the proposed discharge will not lead to a violation of water quality standards. Section 404(r) waives the requirement to obtain a section 404 permit for Federal projects if the information on the effects of the discharge are included in an Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed project and it is submitted to Congress prior to authorization of the project.

Municipal Wastewater Treatment

State Revolving Fund

To help address the growing need for water pollution control funding, Congress created the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) as part of the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987. The CWSRF succeeded the Construction Grants Program, a direct grant program for funding wastewater treatment projects. Under the CWSRF, EPA provides grants or "seed money" to states to capitalize individual State revolving funds. The program is managed by the states, and loans or other types of assistance for water quality projects are disbursed according to each states' programs and priorities. As the loans are repaid, the money is reused (revolved) by the CWSRF to provide assistance for future projects. Although in many cases, assistance is in the form of low interest loans, the CWSRF is a flexible source of financing that can also provide loan guarantees, bond insurance, and refinancing of existing debt. Both point source and nonpoint source water pollution control programs can be financed by the CWSRF. For more information, see the OWM WEB page on the INTERNET at www.epa.gov/owm/

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Program

The CWA prohibits point source discharges into waters of the United States unless in compliance with a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Point sources are, in general, discrete conveyances such as pipes or man-made ditches. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program is authorized by Section 402 of the CWA. These permits must include limits based either on technology or water quality standards, whichever is more stringent. Requirements for effluent limitations are derived from Section 301(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and refer to various levels of treatment which apply to particular categories of pollutants. The NPDES permit program is intended to protect public health and the nation's waters by eliminating or reducing the discharges that pose the most threat to public health and the aquatic environment. These discharges include human wastes, toxic chemicals, oil and grease, pesticides, and metals which when discharged into the nation's waters, threaten both the health of humans and life forms in the water.

NPDES permits regulate household and industrial wastes that are collected in sewers and treated at municipal wastewater treatment plants. NPDES permits also regulate industrial point sources and concentrated animal feeding operations that discharge directly into receiving waters.

Regulatory agencies use a variety of techniques to monitor permittees' compliance status, including on-site inspections and review of data submitted by permittees.

Permitting and Nationally Applicable Technology Based Effluent Limitations

To support the minimum threshold for substantial pollutant controls, EPA develop technology-based effluent limitations, guidelines and standards, which are limitations based on the performance of treatment and control technologies applicable to specific industrial categories, rather than on the risk or impact to receiving waters. Effluent guidelines are national standards for wastewater discharges directly to surface waters and indirectly (through sanitary sewer systems) to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). NPDES permit writers use the guidelines as the numeric effluent limitations in permits for categorical industries after evaluating whether water quality standards will be maintained if the technology-based limitations are applied.

In developing effluent guidelines, EPA considers the category of industry which produces the pollutant. The Agency takes into account the specific factors unique to a particular type of industry (manufacturing process, type and quantity of pollutants generated, types of treatment facilities available to treat the pollutants, etc.). In using this approach, the regulations attempt to "level the economic playing field" by imposing maximum standards based on demonstrated pollution control for discharging facilities within an industry. In theory, for example, a certain type of facility on the west coast of the U.S. would be required to meet the same pollution controls for BOD as an identical plant located on the east coast (unless there were special site-specific water quality concerns which had to be addressed).

Industrial Pretreatment

Industries in many communities pretreat their wastewater before discharging it to sanitary sewer systems, where it mixes with domestic sources of wastewater. These facilities are "indirect dischargers" because their wastewater is delivered to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) for further treatment and is then, after pretreatment, discharged to receiving waters through the POTW. The National Pretreatment Program, a cooperative effort of federal, State, and local officials, is fostering this practice nationwide. By reducing pollutants discharged by industries into municipal sewage systems, the pretreatment program ensures POTW infrastructure protection and that industrial development vital to the economic well-being of a community will be compatible with a healthy environment.

Most sewage collection and treatment systems are not designed to transport and treat harmful industrial wastes. Such wastes can damage the collection system, interfere with plant operations, pass through the plants to contaminate receiving waters, threaten worker safety and increase the cost and risks of sludge treatment and disposal. These types of problems are prevented using proven pollution control technologies and practices that promote reuse and recycling of material, industrial plants can remove or eliminate pollutants from their wastewaters before discharging them into the municipal sewage treatment system.

Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES) and pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS) are established during the effluent guidelines process (described above) for certain categories of industry. In addition to these categorical standards, local limits are developed and enforced by various POTWs when necessary for the POTW to assure compliance with its water quality based effluent limits, as well as to protect treatment processes, worker health and safety, and equipment.

NPDES Storm Water Program<

The 1987 CWA amendments established a two-phased approach to storm water discharges. The first phase required permits for separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) serving large- and medium-size communities (i.e., those with populations over 100,000 served by the MS4) and for storm water discharges associated with industrial activities, including construction sites disturbing at least five acres. Municipal stormwater permits require a reduction of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable through implementation of a variety of measures. Municipal permit applications required sampling to characterize the discharges from MS4s and many municipal permits require ongoing monitoring of storm water quality to assess program effectiveness and to ensure compliance.

To address the more than 100,000 industrial dischargers of storm water, EPA developed a tiered framework to manage the administrative burden while emphasizing reduction in risk to human health and ecosystems. The second phase of the storm water regulations is designed to address remaining storm water discharges. Additional permittees would be covered, including municipal storm water from urbanized areas with populations under 100,000 and smaller construction sites. EPA proposed a regulation in 1998 and the final rule is anticipated in 1999. At this time, however, in all areas that are not subject to the first phase of regulations, control of urban runoff is voluntary (except urban coastal areas subject to the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA). Therefore, smaller, noncoastal urban areas not currently do not implement urban runoff BMPs at the same level as larger and coastal urban areas.

Combined Sewer Overflows

In many older cities, sewers were designed to carry storm water runoff along with sewage, and to overflow if a heavy rain exceeded the capacity of the system. These combined sewer overflows or "CSOs" occur in about 1,100 cities around the country. In addition to spilling raw sewage, CSOs can also release untreated industrial wastewater and street debris. Therefore, industrial pretreatment is an important component of a CSO control program because CSOs discharge directly from the collection systems to waters of the U.S. The result of such discharges can be a menace to public health, recreational uses, and commercial fishing. In fact, CSOs are a leading cause of beach closures and shellfishing restrictions around the country.

Working closely with the States, affected cities, and environmental groups, EPA helped develop a consensus policy to guide action on CSOs. The Policy encourages cities to pursue certain minimum, low-cost controls and to develop a full understanding of local CSO occurrences and impacts before making longer-term investments in additional wastewater treatment, temporary storage capacity, and sewer rehabilitation. Measures specified in the Policy include proper operation and regular maintenance of sewer systems and CSOs, as well as the public notice in the event of overflows, to ensure that the public receives adequate notification of the impacts of this health and environmental hazard. With significant input from key stakeholders, EPA is currently developing guidances to assist communities to implement measures for the control of CSOs as effectively as possible.

Sanitary Sewer Overflows

EPA has also begun developing a national policy to reduce sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) and the public health threats these overflows cause. The Agency is currently evaluating the extent of the SSO problem across the country by working with the public and with constituent groups to identify and evaluate issues associated with these overflows to protect human health, property, and water quality. Implementation of the NPDES Watershed Strategy is underway, and will include the assessment of State watershed protection activities and needs. EPA is coordinating this effort with States to ensure that ongoing program activities take watershed planning into consideration. The watershed approach is ideally suited to address one of the chief NPDES program responsibilities, the effective implementation of EPA's wet weather strategies, including storm water management and the control of combined sewer and sanitary sewer overflows.

Groundwater Program

Groundwater protection and management is primarily a state-level activity with minimal EPA involvement. This program was authorized under the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments (SDWA) of 1996, and the Federal Clean Water Act. In addition, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) all contain groundwater protection provisions.

Section 1429 of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments (SDWA) of 1996 authorizes the Administrator of EPA to make grants to States to develop and implement programs to ensure the coordinated and comprehensive protection of ground water resources within the State. While Congress has not yet appropriated funds for these grants, the EPA has developed guidance to identify the key elements of State ground water protection programs and to establish grant application procedures should funds become available in the future.

The Final Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program (CSGWPP) Guidance document (EPA 100-R-93-001) encourages States to develop and implement CSGWPPs, as an integral part of watershed protection. In that guidance, EPA identifies six strategic activities to ensure CSGWPPs are designed to focus source control programs on preventing contamination of higher priority ground water, facilitate coordination among the many intrastate programs that protect ground water, and build a comprehensive approach to protection of ground water that includes all stakeholders. In addition, CSGWPPs strengthen State watershed approaches by providing an essential linkage between the State's ground water and surface water protection programs. Many States use funding under section 106 of the Clean Water Act to support their efforts to develop State groundwater programs and plans.

Drinking Water Program

The 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA, P.L. 104-182) emphasize preventing contamination problems through source water protection and enhanced water system management. The act promotes sound science and risk-based standard setting, small water supply system flexibility and technical assistance, community-empowered source water protection, consumer awareness/right-to-know, and water system infrastructure assistance through a multi-billion-dollar Drinking Water State Revolving Fund.

Source Water Protection

SDWA section 1453 requires States with PWSS primacy to develop source water quality assessments program and submit it for EPA approval. State assessment programs are required to: (1) delineate the boundaries of the areas providing source waters for public water systems, and (2) identify (to the extent practicable) the origins of regulated and certain unregulated contaminants in the delineated area to determine the susceptibility of public water systems to such contaminants. [1453] Sec. 132(a). EPA published guidance to States on August 6, 1997. States must submit their program to EPA no later than February 6,1999. States must also make the results of the source water assessments available to the public. States may use SRF set-aside funds to pay for their source water protection and implementation efforts. Statutory Reference (§1428, 1429, 1453, 1454)

Capacity Development - Revolving Funds

The 1996 SDWA Amendments created a program to strengthen the technical, managerial, and financial capacity of water systems to deliver safe drinking water by authorizing States to develop programs to support capacity development. States may use SRF set-aside funds to pay for their capacity development and implementation efforts. Statutory Reference (§ 1420, 1415).

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund

The SDWA Amendments of 1996 authorized a Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) program to assist public water systems finance the costs of drinking water infrastructure to achieve or maintain compliance with DWSRF requirements and to protect public health. The DWSRF program will help ensure that the nation's drinking water supplies remain safe and affordable, and that systems that receive funding will be properly operated and maintained.

The 1996 SDWA amendments emphasize preventing contamination problems. Central to this emphasis is the development of State prevention programs, including source water protection, capacity development and operator certification. States have the option to use a portion of its DWSRF capitalization grant to help develop these programs. The DWSRF appropriation for FY97 was $1.275 billion, and $725 million in FY98. Statutory Reference (§1452).

Risk-based Contaminant Selection

Maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for drinking water supplies are established by EPA by a regulation. Prior to the reauthorization in 1996, EPA was required to regulate an additional 25 contaminants every three years. EPA now has the flexibility to decide whether to regulate a contaminant after reviewing at least five contaminants every five years. To regulate a contaminant, EPA must use the following criteria: the contaminant adversely affects human health; it is known or substantially likely to occur in public water system with a frequency and at levels of public health concern; and the regulation of the contaminant presents a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction.

Wellhead Protection

The 1986 SDWA Amendments established the Wellhead Protection Program to protect ground waters that supply drinking water to public supply systems. The wellhead protection program protects all or part of the area surrounding a well from which the ground water is drawn (i.e., the "wellhead protection area"). Wellhead protection requires State and local coordination to delineate the wellhead protection area, identify actual and potential sources of contamination, and execute protection strategies. Contingency plans, provisions for siting new wells, and public participation are important elements of the wellhead protection programs. EPA supported State program development through grants under §106, §205(j) and §319 of the Clean Water Act. States can use set-asides from their DWSRF funds to conduct wellhead protection programs.

Underground Injection Control

Mandated by the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program works with State and local governments to regulate injection wells to prevent them from contaminating drinking water resources. EPA defines the five classes of wells according to the type of waste they inject and where the waste is injected. EPA also provides States with technical support, including program guidance and data management.

The Sole Source Aquifer (SSA) Protection Program

The SSA Protection Program is authorized by SDWA section 1424 (Public Law 93-523, 42 U.S.C. 300 et. seq). Under the SSA program, the EPA Administrator can designate an area that has an aquifer which is the sole or principal drinking water source for the area and which, if contaminated, would create a significant hazard to public health. Designations are published in the Federal Register. After the publication, no commitment for federal financial assistance (through a grant, ontract, loan guarantee, or otherwise) may be entered into for any project which the Administrator determines may contaminate an aquifer and create a significant hazard to public health. Federal assistance may, if authorized under another provision of law, be entered into to plan or design the project to assure that it will not so contaminate the aquifer.

Pesticide Program

Another program administered by EPA that controls some forms of nonpoint source pollution is the pesticides program under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Among other things, this program authorizes EPA to control pesticides that may threaten ground and surface water. FIFRA provides for the registration of pesticides and enforceable label requirements, which may include maximum rates of application, restrictions on use practices, and classification of pesticides as "restricted use" pesticides (which restricts use to certified applicators trained to handle toxic chemicals).

CERCLA/SARA

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) or "Superfund" provides broad federal authority to respond to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances. This law provides for the cleanup of inactive or abandoned hazardous waste sites. Under CERCLA, EPA assesses the nature and extent of contamination at a site, determines the public health and environmental threats posed by a site, analyzes the potential cleanup alternatives, and takes action to clean up the site. In instances where a CERCLA site has impact on a nearby waterbody, the level of cleanup needed to maintain water quality standards of surface waters may have a direct relationship to the TMDL. As part of the CERCLA process, all "applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements" of statutes such as the CWA must be followed. Load allocations developed pursuant to section 303(d) may, in appropriate circumstances, be "applicable or relevant and appropriate."

POTWs that discharge CERCLA hazardous substances in effluent at levels that equal or exceed NPDES permit limitations, or for which no specific limitations exist, or in spills or other releases, may be subject to the notification requirements and liability provisions under CERCLA. In addition, POTWs that disposed of sludge in impoundments or landfills that are Superfund sites may be required to pay for cleanup of those sites. At times, POTWs may be requested to accept wastewaters from Superfund cleanup activities. If discharge of CERCLA wastewaters to an off-site POTW is deemed appropriate, the discharger must ensure compliance with the national pretreatment program and all local pretreatment regulations.

The provisions of CERCLA extend well beyond the regulation of POTW discharges and include abandoned hazardous waste sites and inactive mines.

The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), which amended CERCLA, also established in Title III a new program to increase the public's knowledge of and access to information on the presence of hazardous chemicals in their communities and releases of these chemicals into the environment. Title III (Community Right to Know Program) requires facilities to notify State and local officials if they have extremely hazardous substances present at their facilities in amounts exceeding certain "threshold planning quantities." If appropriate, the facility must also provide material safety data sheets on hazardous chemicals stored at their facilities, or lists of chemicals for which these data sheets are maintained, and report annually on the inventory of these chemicals used at their facility. The law may also require facilities to submit information each year on the amount of toxic chemicals released by the facilities to all media (air, water, and land), if they fall within Standards Industrial Classification Codes 20 to 39 and meet certain threshold limits.

Other Federal Activities

U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Agency

Farm Bill Conservation Provisions

Technical and financial assistance for landowners seeking to preserve soil and other natural resources is authorized by the Federal government under provisions of the Food Security Act (Farm Bill). Approximately $163 million is available annually through the Farm Bill. 1996 provisions relating directly to installation and maintenance of BMPs are summarized in the following sections.

Environmental Conservation Acreage Reserve Program (ECARP)

ECARP is an umbrella program established by the 1996 Farm Bill which contains the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), and Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). It authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to designate watersheds, multi-state areas, or regions of special environmental sensitivity as conservation priority areas which are eligible for enhanced Federal assistance. Assistance in priority areas is to be used to help agricultural producers comply with nonpoint source pollution requirements of the Clean Water Act and other State or Federal environmental laws. The ECARP is authorized through 2002.

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)—First authorized by the Food Security Act of 1985 (Farm Bill), this voluntary program offers annual rental payments, incentive payments, and cost-share assistance for establishing long-term, resource-conserving cover crops on highly erodible land. Conservation Reserve Program contracts are issued for 10 to 15 years for up to 36.4 million acres of cropland and marginal pasture. Land can be accepted into the CRP through a competitive bidding process where all offers are ranked using an environmental benefits index, or through continuous sign-up for eligible lands where certain special conservation practices will be implemented. Annually, $2 million dollars s available through CRP.

Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP)—The WRP is a voluntary program to restore and protect wetlands and associated lands. Participants may sell a permanent or 30-year conservation easement or enter into a 10-year cost-share agreement with USDA to restore and protect wetlands. The landowner voluntarily limits future use of the land, yet retains private ownership. The NRCS provides technical assistance in developing a plan for restoration and maintenance of the land. The landowner retains the right to control access to the land and may lease the land for hunting, fishing, and other undeveloped recreational activities.

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)—EQIP was established by the 1996 Farm Bill to provide a voluntary conservation program for farmers and ranchers who face serious threats to soil, water, and related natural resources. EQIP offers financial, technical, and educational help to install or implement structural, vegetative, and management practices designed to conserve soil and other natural resources. Current priorities for these funds dictate that one half of the available monies be directed to livestock-related concerns. Cost-sharing may pay up to 75 percent of the costs for certain conservation practices. Incentive payments may be made to encourage producers to perform land management practices such as nutrient management, manure management, integrated pest management, irrigation water management, and wildlife habitat management. Cost-share for construction of animal waste management facilities is prohibited for livestock operations over 1,000 animal units or as otherwise approved by the Chief of NRCS, but such units are eligible for incentive payments and technical and educational assistance. Annually, $200 million is available through EQIP.

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP)

This program is designed for people who want to develop and improve wildlife habitat on private lands. Plans are developed in consultation with the NRCS and local Conservation District. USDA provides technical assistance and cost-share up to 75 percent of the cost of installing the wildlife practices. Participants generally must sign a 5- to 10-year contract with USDA which requires that they maintain the practices. Annually, $200,000 is available through WHIP.

Conservation of Private Grazing Land

This program was authorized by the 1996 Farm Bill to provide technical and educational assistance to owners of private grazing lands. It offers opportunities for better land management, erosion reduction, water conservation, wildlife habitat, and improving soil structure.

USDA Forest Service

Forestry Incentives Program (FIP)

Originally authorized in 1978, the FIP allows cost sharing up to 65 percent (up to a maximum of $10,000 per person per year) for tree planting, timber stand improvement, and related practices on nonindustrial private forest land. The FIP is administered by the NRCS and the U.S. Forest Service. Cost share funds are restricted to individuals who own no more than 1,000 acres of eligible forest land.

DOI Bureau of Land Management

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is the agency of the Department of the Interior that manages about 272 million acres of land. The BLM program areas most relevant to the TMDL program fall under BLM's Lands and Renewable Resources Program area, which includes recreation, forestry, wilderness, range, cultural resources, and wildlife. For example, BLM manages about 2,000 miles of the Wild and Scenic River System and manages the riparian areas along about 85,000 miles of streams containing trout, salmon, and other sport fish. More than 4 million acres of lakes and reservoirs are managed by BLM. BLM also manages 25 wilderness areas in eight states, covering more than 450,000 acres and manages livestock razing on 165 million acres of public lands serving about 18,000 ranchers and farmers.

DOI Bureau of Reclamation

The Bureau of Reclamation is an agency of the U.S. Department of the Interior which stores and supplies water for irrigation and for use in homes and in industry. The Bureau also generates hydroelectric power, provides flood control, and helps meet fish and wildlife needs and compliance with water quality standards. The Bureau's mission includes a water resources management focus and the development of technical expertise and the transfer of more environmentally sensitive solutions to water users and water managers.

Army Corps of Engineers

The Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is involved in numerous activities that support environmental planning and analysis, which play a pivotal role in Corps civil works, military, and other programs. In addition to support for Corps programs, these water quality activities support EPA and U.S. Fish and Wildlife program and a host of State and local environmental efforts.

• Monitoring of hundreds of projects
• Flow augmentation for fisheries monitoring and resolution of dissolved gas problems
• Modeling to better understand project functions
• Management of releases to resolve temperature and dissolved oxygen problems
• Monitoring and resolving groundwater contamination
• Quantifying saltwater intrusion problems
• Dealing with toxic algal blooms
• Monitoring bacterial problems
• Working to protect threatened and endangered species
• Supporting dredging activities
• Working with off-shore disposal problems
• Working with contaminated sediments
• Identifying toxics in fish flesh and working to resolve fishkill problems
• Working to improve and create wetland, river corridor and other important habitats
• Working with ecology of such diverse organisms as bacteria, fish, zooplankton, birds, insects, and mammals in addition to dealing with the physical environment

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Founded in 1979, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is an independent executive agency of the federal government. FEMA's mission is to reduce loss of life and property and to protect the nation's critical infrastructure from all types of hazards through a comprehensive, risk-based, emergency management program of mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery.

The range of activities undertaken by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is broad. FEMA advises local governments on building codes and flood plain management, i.e., teaching people how to get through a disaster and helping equip local and State emergency preparedness. FEMA also coordinates the federal response to disasters, making disaster assistance available to States, communities, businesses and individuals. The agency trains emergency managers, supports the nation's fire service, administers the national flood and crime insurance programs. Floodplain management aspects are the most relevant to the TMDL program.