FINDINGS FOR THE
  NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL NONPOINT PROGRAM
                      

FOREWORD

     This document contains the findings for the coastal
nonpoint pollution control program submitted by the State of North
Carolina pursuant to Section 6217(a) of the Coastal Zone Act
Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA).  The findings are
based on a review of the North Carolina Coastal Nonpoint
Pollution Control Program, July 1995 and supplemental material
provided by North Carolina subsequent to the program submittal. 
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reviewed
this information and evaluated the extent to which it conforms with
the requirements of CZARA.

     NOAA and EPA commend North Carolina on the
substantial amount of time and effort put into developing your
program and we appreciate the commitment you have shown to
complete an ambitious task with limited resources.  We will
continue to work with coastal states and territories to ensure that
these findings represent an accurate assessment of current state and
territory abilities and efforts to address coastal nonpoint source
pollution.  We recognize that there may be further administrative
changes to the coastal nonpoint program that will impact these
findings and we assure you that, once such changes are finalized,
we will review these findings in light of the changes and make any
necessary adjustments. 


APPROVAL DECISION

     NOAA and EPA approve the coastal nonpoint pollution
control program submitted by the State of North Carolina pursuant
to Section 6217(a) of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization
Amendments of 1990, subject to certain conditions.  

     This document provides the specific findings used by
NOAA and EPA as the basis for the decision to approve North
Carolina's program.  It also provides the rationale for the findings
and includes conditions that will need to be met for North Carolina
to receive final approval of its program.  The timeframes
associated with conditions become effective on the date of the
approval letter for these findings.
INTRODUCTION

      This document is organized by the major nonpoint source
categories and subcategories identified in the section 6217(g)
guidance and the administrative elements identified in the program
guidance (including the boundary for the 6217 management area). 
Where appropriate, NOAA and EPA have grouped categories and
subcategories of management measures into a single finding.  The
structure of each finding follows a standard format.  Generally, the
finding is that the state program includes or does not include
management measures in conformity with the (g) guidance and
includes or does not include enforceable policies and mechanisms
to ensure implementation.  In some cases, the finding reflects that
the state has identified a back-up enforceable policy, but has not
demonstrated the ability of the authority to ensure implementation. 
For further understanding of terms in this document, the reader is
referred to the following:

Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of
Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters (EPA, January 1993)
Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program:  Program
Development and Approval Guidance (NOAA and EPA, January
1993)
Flexibility for State Coastal Nonpoint Programs (NOAA and EPA,
March 1995)

     The references in this document refer to the North Carolina
Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program, July 1995 ("program
submittal").  NOAA and EPA have written this document as
succinctly as possible.  We have relied upon, but do not repeat
here, the extensive information that the State has included in its
program submittal.  Further information and analysis, including
material provided by North Carolina subsequent to the program
submittal, is contained in the administrative record for this
approval decision and may be reviewed by interested parties at the
following locations:

EPA/Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division 
Nonpoint Source Control Branch
401 M St., SW (4503-F)
Washington, DC  20460
Contact: Dov Weitman (202-260-7088)

NOAA/Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
Coastal Programs Division
SSMC-4, N/ORM3
1305 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD  20910
Contact: Joelle Gore (301/713-3117, x177)

U.S. EPA, Region 4
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
CONTACT: Robert B. Howard (404-562-9370)
     I.   BOUNDARY

FINDING: North Carolina's proposed 6217 management area
excludes existing land and water uses that have or are reasonably
expected to have a significant impact on the coastal waters of the
State. 

CONDITION:  Within one year, the North Carolina Department
of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, and other relevant State, local, and
Federal agencies will participate in a cooperative process to review
relevant information and to determine an appropriate 6217
management area boundary to protect the State's coastal waters
from nonpoint source pollution.

North Carolina's program will include management measures in
conformity with the 6217(g) guidance, and enforceable policies
and mechanisms that ensure implementation of the management
measures throughout an expanded 6217 management area.

RATIONALE: North Carolina's proposed 6217 management area
is the State's existing coastal zone boundary, which encompasses
the twenty coastal counties and is regulated under the State's
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA). 

Based on an examination of information provided by the State in
its program submittal, including data from the State's Clean Water
Act Section 305(b) reports, the State's 1989 Nonpoint Source
Assessment Report, and basinwide water quality plans developed
for the Neuse, Lumbar, Tar-Pamlico, and Cape Fear River Basins,
NOAA and EPA believe that there are land and water uses outside
of the State's existing coastal zone boundary that have or are
reasonably expected to have a significant impact on the State's
coastal waters.   

For example, in Table 5.7 in Volume I of the program submittal,
use support ratings are listed for Neuse River sub-basins within the
federally recommended management area.  Sub-basin 03-04-11,
which is located outside of the State's CAMA boundary, lists 152
miles of streams and rivers with a water quality rating of only
"partially supporting."  The same sub-basin lists agriculture as the
contributor of water quality impairment for 84 miles of those 152
miles rated as partially supporting.  Similar information suggesting
water quality impairments from nonpoint pollution was presented
for other sub-basins including the Lumbar, Tar-Pamlico, and Cape
Fear watersheds.

The Program Development and  Approval Guidance (1993)
describes two options that States have in delineating their 6217
management areas.  First, the State can modify its existing coastal
zone boundary to incorporate the entire 6217 management area. 
Second, if the State chooses not to modify its existing coastal zone
boundary, the State can rely on other programs, including
enforceable policies and mechanisms, to control land and water
uses and ensure the implementation of the 6217 (g) management
measures throughout the 6217 management area.

In two cases (marinas and hydromodification), the State will need
to expand its current programs and enforceable authorities beyond
their current jurisdiction or identify other enforceable policies and
mechanisms to ensure implementation of the management
measures in an expanded boundary area.

     II.  AGRICULTURE 

FINDING:  North Carolina's program includes management
measures in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance, except the
program does not include management measures for pesticide
management, irrigation water management, and does not include
the limiting nutrient concept as part of the nutrient management
measure.  North Carolina has enforceable policies and mechanisms
to ensure implementation for some confined animal facilities, but
cannot ensure implementation for all facilities as described in the
6217 (g) guidance.  North Carolina has identified a backup
enforceable policy and mechanism to implement the erosion and
sediment control management measure which also may be used for
other agricultural management measures, but has not demonstrated
the authority's ability to ensure implementation throughout the
6217 management area.

CONDITIONS:  Within two years, North Carolina will include in
its program management measures in conformity with the
agricultural management measures for nutrient management,
pesticide management, and irrigation water management.  Within
one year, North Carolina will develop a strategy (in accordance
with section XIV, page 14) to implement the agricultural
management measures throughout the 6217 management area.

RATIONALE:  North Carolina has a detailed regulatory program
under its Nondischarge Rule for animal waste management
systems and nutrient management for land application of those
wastes (NCAC T15A:02H .0122 et seq.).  The State's program
excludes facilities smaller than 100 head of cattle, 250 swine or
30,000 birds with a liquid waste system.  This could potentially
exclude from the State's program approximately 85,000 animal
units in the State's existing coastal zone that are held in facilities
large enough to be subject to the 6217(g) management measures
for animal facilities.  The State's Agriculture Cost-Share Program
(ASCP), which operates Statewide, includes practices that are in
conformity with the animal waste facility management measures
and  provides a voluntary mechanism for implementing the
measures below the thresholds of the Nondischarge Rule.

The State has also passed new requirements for animal waste
management which provides a tiered permitting program for
animal waste management systems.  The program supplants the
"deemed permitted" approach established in the original 1992
regulations, and requires permits to be issued by the Department of
Water Quality on a phased-in priority basis for construction and
operation of animal waste management systems.  Priority for
issuance of permits will be given to the largest operations (NCAC
T15A: 02H .0217).  In 1996, the State General Assembly also
enacted a new Clean Water Management Trust Fund which will
provide substantial funds on an annual basis for a broad range of
water quality-related activities. 

With respect to other aspects of North Carolina's agricultural
program, the State has many efforts underway that can be used to
address problems stemming from agriculture, including basin-wide
programs and various education and research programs by the
Cooperative Extension Service and Agricultural Research Service. 
Additionally, the State is exploring the potential of using a cross-
compliance mechanism to encourage pollution prevention through
Use Value Taxation.   

The State has identified a wide range of best management practices
that it can use to achieve the management measures; however, the
State has not clearly described how it will select and apply
practices that, in combination, will achieve the measures. 
Moreover, several key elements of the management measures are
not addressed by those practices identified in the State's program
submittal, including integrated pest management, irrigation
scheduling, water-measuring devices, and measurement of crop
water needs.

The State's water quality standards (NCAC T15A: 02B .0200 et
seq.) may serve as a backup enforceable policy and mechanism for
the agricultural management measures, but the State has not
demonstrated that the water quality standards will ensure
implementation throughout the 6217 management area.  Any
source of water pollution which precludes any of the designated
uses of the water body is considered to be violating a water quality
standard.  Under the statute, the State also has authority to require
implementation of best management practices if the State's
turbidity standard is violated; compliance with the turbidity
standard is achieved when State-recommended best management
practices are implemented.

     III. FORESTRY

FINDING:  North Carolina's program includes management
measures in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance and enforceable
policies and mechanisms to ensure implementation.

RATIONALE:  In order to remain exempt from the Sedimentation
Pollution Control Act (113A-52(6)), forestry operators must
adhere to the BMP requirements set forth by rule in the Forest
Practices Guidelines Related to Water Quality (NCAC T15A:
1I.0101-.0209).  These guidelines and supporting practices
contained in the Forestry Best Management Practices Manual and
Best Management Practices for Forestry in North Carolina
Wetlands are in conformity with the management measures. 
Forestry operations are inspected for compliance with the Forest
Practices Guidelines, and the State has included summary data for
years 1990 through 1994 in its program submittal.

While North Carolina has in place a sound forestry program,
NOAA and EPA encourage the State to pursue its
recommendations for improvement found on pages 5-1 through 5-4
of the Forestry section of the State's submittal.  

     IV.  URBAN 

     A.   NEW DEVELOPMENT, SITE DEVELOPMENT, and
     CONSTRUCTION SITE EROSION AND SEDIMENT
     CONTROL

FINDING:  North Carolina's program includes management
measures in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance, except that the
program does not include management measures to require an 80
percent total suspended solids (TSS) reduction for new
development.  The program includes enforceable policies and
mechanisms to ensure implementation, except the program does
not include enforceable policies and mechanisms for sites
disturbing one acre or less for the new development and site
development management measures.  The State has identified a
backup enforceable policy applicable to the erosion and sediment
control management measure for sites disturbing one acre or less ,
but has not demonstrated the ability to ensure implement
throughout the 6217 management area. 

CONDITION: Within two years, North Carolina will include in
its program management measures in conformity with the 80
percent TSS standard for new development, and enforceable
policies and mechanisms to ensure implementation of the new
development and site development management measures on sites
disturbing one acre or less.  For the erosion and sediment control
measure, the State will, within one year, develop a strategy (in
accordance with Section XIV, page 14) to implement the measure
throughout the 6217 management area. 

RATIONALE:  North Carolina's erosion and sediment control
rules require an approved erosion and sedimentation control plan
for activities disturbing more than one acre of land.  The plans
require identification of critical areas, limitation of exposed areas,
and measures to ensure that postdevelopment velocity of the ten
year storm runoff does not exceed the predevelopment velocity.  In
addition, the rules require that during construction, sediment is
retained on site, cut and fill activities are restricted, and buffer
zones are established to protect waterbodies.  Further, North
Carolina's Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design
Manual identifies conservation standards that conform to these
management measures.  The CAMA provides additional protection
for coastal wetlands and estuarine waters through its permitting
process.  For sites disturbing one acre or less, the State proposes to
use its turbidity standard as a back-up enforceable policy and
mechanism.

North Carolina's stormwater rules (NCAC T15A 02H .1000)
require that development activities disturbing more than one acre
in coastal counties control runoff.    Developers have a number of
options to control runoff, including wet detention ponds designed
to achieve an 85 percent TSS removal  and storage of runoff from a
one-inch rainfall from the site above the permanent pool. 
However, the rules do not require that controls, either alone or in
combination, other than wet detention ponds achieve the 80
percent TSS standard.  In addition, both the erosion and
sedimentation control and stormwater rules apply only to sites
disturbing greater than one acre, and the stormwater rules apply
only in the existing coastal management area, in designated water
supply watersheds, and in areas with critical proximity to High
Quality or Outstanding Resource Waters.  

     B.   WATERSHED PROTECTION and EXISTING
     DEVELOPMENT

FINDING:  North Carolina's program does not include
management measures for watershed protection and existing
development in conformity with the 6217 (g) guidance but includes
enforceable policies and mechanisms to ensure implementation
throughout the 6217 management area.

CONDITION:  Within two years, the State will include in its
program management measures in conformity with the watershed
protection and existing development management measures.

RATIONALE:  North Carolina proposes to use a number of
watershed-level water quality protection laws and regulations, the
Basinwide Planning Initiative, and the erosion and sedimentation
control rules discussed above to implement the watershed
protection management measure.  While these programs can
implement certain aspects of the measure, such as avoiding
conversion of areas susceptible to erosion, they do not provide for
comprehensive watershed protection throughout the management
area.  Preserving areas that provide water quality benefits and
siting of development to protect the natural integrity of waterbodies
are not fully addressed by these programs.  North Carolina's Areas
of Environmental Concern (AECs) and Water Supply Watershed
Rules may provide for protection of certain watershed features, but
these programs are too narrowly defined to accomplish watershed
protection throughout the 6217 management area.

North Carolina has undertaken the Basinwide Planning Initiative to
identify and restore full use to impaired waters, identify and protect
highly valued resource waters, and manage problem pollutants
within each basin through development of consistent and effective
long-range management strategies that protect both the quality and
intended uses of surface waters.  The planning approach is a five
year process that involves data collection, modeling, and the
development of pollution control strategies.  While the planning
cycle is tied to issuance and renewal of NPDES permits, the
approach provides a potential mechanism to integrate point and
nonpoint source pollutant control programs in each of the 17 major
basins within the State.  However, it is unclear how the State will
address opportunities to reduce pollution from existing nonpoint
sources and the program does not include a schedule for
implementing appropriate controls.  

     C.   CONSTRUCTION SITE CHEMICAL CONTROL

FINDING:   North Carolina's program does not include
management measures in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance. 
North Carolina has identified backup enforceable policies and
mechanisms to implement the management measure, but has not
demonstrated the ability of these authorities to ensure 
implementation throughout the 6217 management area. 

CONDITIONS:  Within two years, North Carolina will include in
its program management measures for construction site chemical
control in conformity with the (g) guidance.  Within one year,
North Carolina will develop a strategy ( in accordance with Section
XIV, page 14) to ensure  implementation of the management
measure throughout the 6217 management area.

RATIONALE:   In its program submittal, North Carolina cites the
State's water quality standards and the Oil Pollution and
Hazardous Substances Control Act as enforcement authorities for
this management measure.  However, the State has not
demonstrated that these authorities will achieve  implementation of
controls for construction site chemicals throughout the 6217
management area.

     D.   NEW and OPERATING ONSITE DISPOSAL
     SYSTEMS (OSDS)

FINDING:  North Carolina's program includes management
measures in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance, except it does
not provide for (1) adequate separation distances between  OSDS
system components and groundwater that is closely hydrologically
connected to surface waters,  (2) measures for inspection and
maintenance of OSDS serving single family residences,  and (3)
denitrifying systems where nitrogen-limited surface waters may be
adversely affected by excess nitrogen loadings from OSDS.   North
Carolina's program includes enforceable policies 
and mechanisms to ensure implementation of the measures
throughout the 6217 management area.

CONDITION:  Within two years, North Carolina will include in
its program management measures in conformity with the 6217 (g)
guidance to provide (1)  adequate separation distances between
OSDS system components and groundwater that is closely
hydrologically connected to surface waters,  (2) measures for
inspection and maintenance of OSDS serving single family
residences,  and (3) denitrifying systems where nitrogen-limited
surface waters may be adversely affected by excess nitrogen
loadings from OSDS.

RATIONALE:  Except for the conditions noted above, North
Carolina has a comprehensive regulatory program for the location,
design, installation, and inspection and maintenance of onsite
disposal systems.  For example, the State inspects all OSDS larger
than single family (Type II) every five years, but does not have a
program to ensure inspection of OSDSs serving single family
residences.  The State's requirement that allows a vertical
separation distance of 12" between the nitrification field and either
wet or otherwise unsuitable soils is inadequate to meet the new
OSDS management measure, which requires that OSDS be
designed and sited at a density so as not to adversely affect surface
waters or ground water that is closely hydrologically connected to
surface waters.  In addition, the State's program does not require
measures to ensure the reduction of nitrogen loadings where
nitrogen-limited surface water may be adversely affected by excess
nitrogen loadings from ground water.
  
     E.   POLLUTION PREVENTION

FINDING:  North Carolina's program includes management
measures in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance.

RATIONALE: In its program submittal, North Carolina describes
a number of existing programs and efforts supported by the State to
encourage pollution prevention, including the Pollution Prevention
Pays (PPP) Program, which provides technical and educational
assistance to industries,  local governments, and landowners on
methods of waste reduction.  NOAA and EPA encourage the State
to include additional efforts in this program to more directly
address  pollution reduction opportunities for individuals, such as
the application and disposal of garden care products, and the
disposal of pet waste. 

     F.   ROADS, HIGHWAYS, AND BRIDGES

FINDING:  North Carolina's program includes management
measures for roads, highways, and bridges in conformity with the
6217(g) guidance, except for the runoff systems management
measure, for which the State is currently in the process of
developing a program.  North Carolina's program includes
enforceable policies and mechanisms that ensure implementation
of the management measures.

CONDITION:  Within three years, North Carolina will include in
its program management measures for runoff systems in
conformity with the 6217 (g) guidance.

RATIONALE:  North Carolina has established requirements and
procedures for review and approval of all land disturbing activities
(more than 1 acre) by the Sediment Control Commission and
Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) (G.S.  113A-50 to 71 and
113A-107 to 126).   The Sediment Control Commission has
delegated responsibility to the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) to implement construction and
maintenance programs for State roads, highways and bridges and to
provide guidance for local government programs.  The Sediment
Control Commission can delegate approval to local governments
that request delegation, and remains responsible for developments
in local areas without delegation. 

CAMA permits are required within the existing coastal zone for
activities affecting the AECs, and the activity must also be
consistent with the coastal counties' local land use plans.  The
Sediment Control Commission and CRC, as well as delegated
agencies, have the authority to inspect, fine, require restoration of
damaged areas, and issue stop work orders.

NCDOT has developed standard contract specifications, planning
and design manuals (including guidance for stormwater
management), and training programs.  NCDOT also provides local
agencies training and education.

North Carolina is developing a program which will conform to the
roads, highways, and bridges runoff systems management measure. 
This program, being developed by the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management and NCDOT Division of Highways,
includes a plan to monitor, evaluate, and improve the quality of
runoff (discussed in Appendix J of the program submittal). 

     V.   MARINAS AND RECREATIONAL BOATING

FINDING:  North Carolina's program includes management
measures in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance, except for
fueling station design.  The program includes enforceable policies
and mechanisms to ensure implementation, except the State has not
established authority to implement the boat operation measure.    

CONDITION: Within two years, the State will include in its
program management measures for fueling station design in
conformity with the 6217 (g) guidance and enforceable policies
and mechanisms to implement the boat operation management
measure. 

RATIONALE:  The State's program is implemented through
CAMA, which includes the major development permit process for
new, expanding, and existing marinas and mooring fields. 
Management measures not addressed in CAMA permits, except for
fueling station design, are covered under general NPDES
stormwater permits and the general and specific use standards for
marinas established under Title 15A of the North Carolina
Administrative Code.  Additionally, the State needs to establish the
authority to implement the boat operation management measure.

NOAA and EPA encourage the State to develop an operation and
maintenance BMP manual as a reference for marina operators and
boaters in understanding and applying good management practices
at marinas. A BMP manual could clearly explain the objectives of
fish waste management, maintenance of sewage facilities,
recycling programs, and boat operation, as well as other practices. 




     VI.  HYDROMODIFICATION

FINDINGS:  North Carolina's program includes management
measures in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance, except that the
program does not include management measures for chemical and
pollutant control at dams and does not include a process to identify
and develop strategies to solve existing nonpoint source problems
caused by streambank and shoreline erosion that do not come up
for review under existing permit authorities.  The program includes
enforceable policies and mechanisms to ensure implementation of
the management measures.

CONDITION: Within three years, North Carolina will include in
its program management measures in conformity with the chemical
and pollutant control management measure for dams, and
streambank and shoreline erosion in conformity with the 6217 (g)
guidance.  

RATIONALE: The CAMA requires major development permits
for projects involving channelization, dams, or shorelines in the 20
coastal counties.  Applications for major development permits are
reviewed for their effects on water quality, designated uses, and 
habitat.  For channelization projects involving mining of coastal
resources, a mining permit
 (G.S.  74-50 et seq.) is issued after evaluating the effect of the
proposed activity on wildlife and fisheries.  Channelization
projects to drain low-lying farmland are no longer condoned, but
several projects have been implemented in the coastal counties
over past decades, and are still being maintained by drainage
districts or county governments.  To improve surface water quality
and restore instream and riparian habitat on these and other
existing modified channels, State agencies are identifying critical
areas that will be targeted for water quality improvement, and are
utilizing the Agriculture Cost Share Program and Clean Water Act
319 grants to install BMPs.  NOAA and EPA commend this
approach and encourage the State to pursue full implementation of
the channelization management measures in existing agricultural
channelization projects.   The State is encouraged to complete its
development of the Use Restoration Waters (URW) classification,
and to further apply this mechanism to ensure implementation of
BMP's for nonpoint sources in areas where water quality is
continuously impaired.

North Carolina's Dam Safety Law (G.S. 143-215.23 through
215.37) and Sedimentation Pollution Control Act implement the
management measure for erosion and sediment control at dams. 
The implementing regulations for the Dam Safety Law require
sediment controls for construction and repair of dams in
accordance with the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act (NCAC
T15A: 02K. .0210).  Regulations implementing the Sedimentation
Pollution Control Act require sediment and stormwater controls for
land disturbance of greater than one acre.  The State partially
implements the management measure for chemical and pollutant
control at dams through controls on the storage, handling, and
disposal of solid and hazardous waste.

North Carolina implements the management measures for
protection of surface water quality and habitat from the effects of
dam operation by adding conditions to permits for dam repair,
maintenance, and operation that are necessary to ensure that stream
classifications, water quality standards, and aquatic habitat
requirements are met and maintained.

Management measures for shorelines and streambanks are
implemented partly by the CAMA major development permits for
shoreline projects in the 20 coastal counties, which can require that
natural features on shorelines serving a nonpoint source function
are preserved.  Standards for erosion and sedimentation control
further help to direct stormwater away from shorelines and
streambanks.  Elements of the management measure to protect
shoreline features serving a nonpoint source function are also
implemented through the State's regulation of activities in coastal
marshes which can prevent their destruction.   

The State does not have a process to identify and develop strategies
to solve existing nonpoint source problems caused by streambank
and shoreline erosion that do not come up for review under
existing permit authorities.

VII. WETLANDS, RIPARIAN AREAS AND VEGETATED
TREATMENT SYSTEMS

FINDING:  North Carolina's program includes management
measures in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance and enforceable
policies and mechanisms for the protection of coastal wetlands and
riparian areas in the State's designated Areas of Environmental
Concern.  North Carolina's program does not include enforceable
policies and mechanisms to ensure implementation of the
management measure for the protection of  wetlands and riparian
areas throughout the 6217 management area, i.e., outside of the
designated Areas of Environmental Concern.

CONDITION:  Within three years, North Carolina will include in
its program enforceable policies and mechanisms to ensure
implementation of  the management measures for wetlands, other
than those identified as Areas of Environmental Concern under the
State's Coastal Area Management Act, and riparian areas
throughout the 6217 management area.

RATIONALE:  Among other critical areas, the State designates
all tidal wetlands as Areas of Environmental Concern and requires
that activities affecting these areas receive a permit under CAMA. 
Outside of the Areas of Environmental Concern, local and county
governments also provide protection of coastal wetlands and
riparian areas through comprehensive local land use plans. 

The State also implements management measures for protection of
wetlands and riparian areas through other mechanisms, including:
(1) the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act, which imposes
especially rigorous controls in sensitive watersheds, and buffers
around land-disturbing activities; (2) the Stormwater Control
Program, which requires treatment of wet weather flows before
they carry pollutants into wetlands; (3) the DCM's Wetlands
Conservation Plan functional assessment of individual wetlands,
which is improving the review of  404 permit applications, and
(4) the development and implementation of land-use strategies by
State and local governments.  Amendments proposed in 1995 to
surface water quality standards would increase the State's ability to
protect the physical characteristics and water quality functions of
wetlands.

As the State acknowledges, North Carolina does not currently have
a program to apply management measures to the protection of
nontidal freshwater wetlands.  It is important that the State develop
and implement management measures backed with enforceable
policies and mechanisms for nontidal freshwater wetlands, in view
of the broad extent of these wetlands, particularly within the
State's coastal area, and the importance of these wetlands in
headwater forests to slow and retain floodwaters, to remove
pollutants before they enter coastal waters farther downstream, and
to stabilize streambanks, helping to control erosion and
sedimentation in rivers and lakes.

Management measures promoting restoration of wetlands and
riparian areas are implemented through CAMA, which provides
broad authority for the State to require mitigation for projects that
impact tidal wetlands.  Demonstration projects involving wetlands
restoration have also been initiated by the State utilizing
opportunities with the NC DOT, the USDA PL-566 Watershed
Program, and several non-profit organizations. 

Management measures promoting the use of vegetated treatment
systems are implemented through the Agriculture Cost Share
Program, and Stormwater Runoff Programs,  which encourage
treatment of runoff by vegetated treatment systems or by
sedimentation ponds.

          VIII.     ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION

FINDING:  North Carolina's program establishes mechanisms to
improve coordination among State agencies and between State and
local officials.

RATIONALE:  The State has integrated the administrative
coordination for its Coastal Nonpoint Program into coordination
efforts through its water quality programs - mainly, the Nonpoint
Source Program and Basinwide Planning Initiative.  First, the State
Nonpoint Source Program developed a coordination mechanism
whereby each lead nonpoint agency has a representative that serves
on a Statewide nonpoint workgroup.  The workgroup is responsible
for revising the Nonpoint Source Program and reviewing
applications for Section 319 funding.  The workgroup is served by
teams that develop technical information about nonpoint sources
on a riverbasin basis - e.g., identifying future monitoring sites,
conducting specific assessments of nonpoint source pollution
controls in targeted watersheds, etc.  This information will also be
used in the Basinwide Planning Initiative to ensure each lead
agency is influencing the basinwide planning process.  Workgroup
participants also provide a link with related regional offices, which
in turn provide information to local governments and private
groups.

     IX.  PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

FINDING:  North Carolina's program provides opportunities for
public participation in the development and implementation of its
Coastal Nonpoint Program.

RATIONALE:  North Carolina's program submittal describes
activities that provided opportunities for public participation in the
development and implementation of its Coastal Nonpoint Program. 
Opportunities for public participation include various presentations
made by the State about its coastal nonpoint program and
discussions about the program with environmental groups;
development and distribution of newsletters by University of North
Carolina Sea Grant and the State Division of Coastal Management
to all affected public and 
governmental organizations within NOAA's recommended 6217
management area; and targeted public and agency review of each
portion of the State's program.

     X.   CRITICAL COASTAL AREAS

FINDING:  North Carolina's program identifies and includes a
process for the continuing identification of critical coastal areas
adjacent to impaired and threatened coastal waters.

RATIONALE:  The State's Division of Coastal Management and
Division of Environmental Management have agreed on a
watershed-based method to identify critical coastal areas.  The
State will use GIS-mapping process to identify high, medium, and
low priority waters.  High priority watersheds will include
monitored streams that do not support designated uses due to
nonpoint pollution; monitored streams that are partially supporting
designated uses or have designated uses that are threatened and
have high predicted loadings of one or more pollutants; and
streams that are unusually sensitive as documented by special
studies.  Medium priority watersheds will include those partially
supporting designated uses, and low priority watersheds will
include those fully supporting uses or those that have been
described as impacted on the basis of evaluated data or best
professional judgment.  

Small watersheds (14-digit hydrologic units) that are adjacent to
waters identified as high or medium priority will serve as the
critical coastal areas.  In addition, streams designated as medium or
low priority may be reconsidered as high priority at any time by the
State if special studies support such a change in priority.  The
State's approach follows the second approach described in the
program guidance whereby a State relies on site-specific
evaluations to determine the extent of the critical coastal areas.

     XI.  ADDITIONAL MANAGEMENT MEASURES

FINDING:  North Carolina's program provides for
implementation and continuing revision of additional management
measures applicable to critical coastal areas and cases where
Section 6217(g) management measures are fully implemented but
water quality threats or impairments persist.

RATIONALE:  North Carolina submitted an advisory opinion
from its Attorney General's Office outlining the State's authority to
adopt site-specific BMPs where water quality is below that
required by existing water quality classifications and standards. 
The clearest authority is found in the State's stormwater runoff
law.  The State reports that its ability to adopt site specific BMPs
will be the authority most relied upon to adopt additional
management measures.  

Additionally, the State reports on its authority to establish a new
supplemental water quality classification such as Use Restoration
Waters (URW).  The URW classification would be used by the
State's Environmental Management Commission to require the
development of management strategies targeting all sources of
impairment in areas where use support is persistently impaired. 
URW management strategies would require a site-specific mixture
of best management practices and wastewater management
strategies to restore designated uses.  The State also proposes to
establish the URW classification under the CAMA so that both the
Coastal Resources Commission and the Environmental
Management Commission have authority to ensure that the
classification can be applied throughout the State's 6217
management area.  NOAA and EPA support both of these
approaches. 

     XII. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

FINDING:  North Carolina has included programs that will
provide technical assistance to local governments and the public
for implementing additional management measures.

RATIONALE:  North Carolina describes technical assistance
programs for each of the nonpoint source categories.  For example,
technical assistance is provided by the State Division of Soil and
Conservation, the State Division of Forest Resources, the State
Division of Land Resources, and the State Division of Marine
Fisheries.  The assistance will include the preparation of guidance
documents, manuals, fact sheets, and educational materials;
training workshops; and one-on-one assistance by State technical
staff.  Additional information and education on nonpoint pollution
is accomplished by the Division of Environmental Management's
Nonpoint Source Program and the North Carolina Cooperative
Extension Service.

          XIII.     MONITORING

FINDING:  North Carolina's program includes a plan to assess
over time the success of management measures in reducing
pollutant loads and improving water quality.

RATIONALE:  In the program submittal and additional
information transmitted by the State, North Carolina identifies a
range of existing and new monitoring efforts to assess over time
the effectiveness of best management practices.  These best
management practices studies are in several cases equivalent to
evaluations of section 6217 management measures.  In addition,
the State has identified watershed and ambient monitoring efforts
that, in combination, should allow the State to determine if
management measures are reducing loads and improving water
quality.  The State is encouraged, however, to formalize the linkage
between section 6217 activities and monitoring activities to ensure
that such monitoring will enable the State to assess over time the
extent to which implementation of management measures is
reducing pollution loads and improving water quality.

     XIV. STRATEGY AND EVALUATION OF BACKUP
     AUTHORITIES

Within one year, North Carolina will develop a strategy to
implement the management measures for agriculture, and urban
erosion and sediment control and construction site chemical
control throughout the 6217 management area.  This strategy will
include a description and schedule for the specific steps the State
will take to ensure implementation of the management measure;
describe how existing or new authorities can be used to ensure
implementation where voluntary efforts are unsuccessful; and
identify measurable results which, if achieved, will demonstrate the
State's ability to achieve implementation of the management
measure using the described approach.

In order to evaluate the adequacy of this strategy, North Carolina
will also develop and apply credible survey tools to demonstrate
the ability of the State's approach to achieve implementation for
these management measures.  The use of credible assessment
techniques is necessary in order for NOAA and EPA to evaluate, at
the end of the three year period described in the March 16, 1995
guidance issued by NOAA and EPA entitled Flexibility for State
Coastal Nonpoint Programs, whether the State's approach has
been successful or whether new, more specific authorities will be
needed.