[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 165 (Monday, August 26, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54806-54810]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-21652]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-7267-4]


Supplemental Guidelines for the Award of Section 319 Nonpoint 
Source Grants to States and Territories in FY 2003

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA has developed guidelines that describe the process and 
criteria to be used to award Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 319 nonpoint 
source grants to States and Territories (hereinafter referred to 
collectively as ``States'') in FY 2003. The process and criteria for FY 
2003 are similar to those established for FY 2002, but are modified as 
described below. The guidelines continue to emphasize a concentrated 
focus on the implementation of projects that are designed to improve 
waters that have been listed as impaired under Section 303(d) of the 
CWA. After the President signs EPA's FY 2003 appropriations bill later 
this year, EPA will immediately provide to States their allocations 
based upon the appropriation level and the long-standing Section 319 
allocation formula. EPA also intends to publish separate guidance 
addressing Tribal FY 2003 allocations later this year.

DATES: The guidelines are effective August 26, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Persons requesting additional information should contact 
Romell Nandi at (202) 566-1203; [email protected]; or U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (4503T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20460. The complete text of today's guidelines is also 
available at EPA's Nonpoint Source Web site: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/cwact.html

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    In FY 1999 and 2000, EPA stated that $100 million additional grant 
dollars appropriated by Congress under Section 319 of the CWA (referred 
to as ``incremental funds'') were to be focused on implementing 
watershed restoration action strategies (``WRASs'') in high-priority 
watersheds identified by States as being ``in need of restoration.'' In 
FY 2001, EPA recognized the need to increasingly focus Section 319 
grant dollars on implementing approved total maximum daily loads 
(``TMDLs'') for waters that are impaired in whole or in part by 
nonpoint sources (hereinafter ``NPS TMDLs''), under EPA's existing 
effective TMDL regulations and guidance. Based on this need, EPA stated 
that incremental funds may be used in FY 2001, in addition to the 
activities authorized in FY 1999 and 2000, to fund the development and 
implementation of approved NPS TMDLs for Section 303(d)-listed 
waterbodies, as well as to develop and implement WRASs.
    On September 13, 2001, EPA published Supplemental Guidelines for 
the Award of Section 319 Nonpoint Source Grants to States and 
Territories in FY 2002 and Subsequent Years (66 FR 47653-47657). These 
guidelines modified the approach of FY 1999-2001 by focusing the 
incremental funds entirely on NPS TMDLs rather than on WRASs. 
Specifically, EPA required that States use the incremental funds only 
within 303(d)-listed waters to develop NPS TMDLs; develop watershed-
based plans that describe the actions that are necessary to implement 
NPS TMDLs; and to implement NPS TMDLs for which watershed plans have 
been completed.
    Since the publication of the FY 2002 NPS guidance on September 13, 
2001, EPA has held numerous public meetings around the country with 
States and other interested parties regarding the most appropriate 
means to restore waters that are listed by States as impaired under 
Section 303(d) of the CWA. A significant amount of discussion at these 
meetings and in other fora has focused upon the FY 2002 NPS guidance 
and generated further thinking as to the most effective means to 
promote expeditious implementation of nonpoint source controls needed 
to achieve water quality standards. Based upon these discussions and 
upon further reflection by EPA, EPA has decided that, for FY 2003 and 
subsequent years, we will somewhat modify the approach taken in the FY 
2002 guidelines. The modified approach is discussed below.
    Several earlier guidance documents govern the Section 319 grants 
process, and they remain in effect for FY 2003 and subsequent years 
except to the extent that they are specifically modified in this 
memorandum. These are summarized in Appendix A to this memorandum and 
may all be accessed at http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps.

II. Continued Focus on Restoring Waters Impaired by NPS Pollution

    The priority objective for the use of Section 319 grant funds is to 
implement the national policy, set forth in Section 101(a) of the CWA, 
that nonpoint source programs be implemented expeditiously to achieve 
the goals of the CWA, including the restoration and maintenance of the 
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. To 
achieve this objective, the guidance places top priority on 
implementing on-the-ground measures and practices that will reduce 
pollutant loads and contribute to the restoration of impaired waters. 
The process described below achieves this objective by directing the 
use of incremental Section 319 funds ($100 million) to the development 
and implementation of watershed-based plans that are designed to 
restore waters that have been listed by States as impaired under 
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act.
    This guidance also facilitates smooth and effective integration of 
Section 319

[[Page 54807]]

program objectives with those set forth in the new Farm Bill (Farm 
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002). The new Farm Bill provides 
more conservation funding for agricultural producers than any previous 
Farm Bill. As discussed below, this FY 2003 guidance strongly promotes 
States' use of 20 percent of both the base funds and incremental funds 
to develop watershed-based plans that holistically identify watershed-
based problems and their solutions. By working closely with the United 
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) State conservationists, local 
conservation districts, and agricultural producers to identify those 
areas and practices in greatest need of assistance to address water 
quality concerns, State nonpoint source agencies can help promote 
integrated approaches by all agencies and funding sources to address 
these needs. We strongly encourage State 319 agencies to coordinate 
with these critical partners to assess water quality needs, develop 
watershed-based plans, and to implement appropriate practices using 
Section 319, Environmental Quality Incentives Program, and other 
funding sources.
    Beginning in FY 2003, EPA will award Section 319 funds only in 
accordance with the following principles:
    1. As in the past, States may use the ``base funds'' for the full 
range of activities addressed in their approved NPS management 
programs. EPA notes in particular that States have the opportunity to 
focus much of these funds upon activities that protect threatened 
waters. In any event, States have great flexibility as to how to focus 
these funds.
    2. As in the past, States may use up to 20% of the ``base'' funds 
to develop NPS TMDLs and watershed-based plans to implement NPS TMDLs; 
develop watershed-based plans in the absence of or prior to completion 
of TMDLs; develop watershed-based plans that focus on the protection of 
threatened waters or other unimpaired waters; and conduct other NPS 
monitoring and program assessment/development activities. EPA expects 
States to prioritize their Section 319-supported NPS TMDL development 
activities in accordance with their TMDL schedules that they have 
developed pursuant to their Section 303(d) lists.
    3. States may use up to 20% of the ``incremental'' $100 million 
funds to develop NPS TMDLs as well as to develop watershed-based plans 
that describe the actions that are necessary to implement NPS 
activities in watersheds of Section 303(d)-listed waters. Where a NPS 
TMDL for the affected waters has already been developed and approved or 
is being developed, the watershed-based plan must be designed to 
achieve the load reductions called for in the NPS TMDL. However, where 
a NPS TMDL has not yet been developed and approved or is not yet being 
developed for the waters, the State may use these funds to develop a 
watershed-based plan in the absence of the TMDL. In such cases, the 
plan must be designed to reduce NPS pollutant loadings that are 
contributing to non-attainment of water quality standards. However, 
once the TMDL is completed and approved, the plan must be modified as 
appropriate to be consistent with the load allocation portion contained 
within the TMDL. For example, if the TMDL assigns a load allocation to 
nonpoint sources that requires greater than previously estimated load 
reductions, the watershed-based plan must be modified to reflect the 
increased nonpoint source load reduction needed to implement the TMDL.
    EPA encourages States to develop NPS TMDLs or, where applicable, 
sets of NPS TMDLs on a watershed basis. We encourage States to 
implement watershed-based plans holistically, as this approach usually 
provides the most technically sound and economically efficient means of 
addressing water quality problems. Consistent with this approach, EPA 
encourages States to include in their watershed-based plans approaches 
that will address all of the sources and causes of impairments and 
threats to the watersheds in question. Thus, the watershed-based plans 
should address not only the sources of water quality impairment, but 
also any pollutants and sources of pollution that need to be addressed 
to assure the long-term health of the watershed. Finally, since 
watersheds with completed TMDLs have the best documentation of the load 
reductions needed to achieve water quality standards, EPA recommends 
that States assign the highest priority to implementing watershed-based 
plans for waters that have completed TMDLs.
    We recognize that some States have not yet developed sufficiently 
detailed watershed-based plans to help the States and their partners 
determine which management measures or practices should be implemented 
in particular places in the watershed to assure the achievement of 
desired load reduction (whether identified in a NPS TMDL or prior to 
its development) and to ensure that all significant water quality 
problems in the watershed are successfully addressed. In such cases, a 
State may need to use more than 20% of its incremental funds to develop 
sound watershed-based plans that can then be implemented successfully. 
Where this is the case, the State and the Region should discuss the 
State's need to devote greater resources to completing watershed-based 
plans, recognizing at the same time the urgent need to focus most 
Section 319 funds on actual implementation efforts to achieve water 
quality improvements. Based on these discussions, the Region may 
authorize the State to use more than 20% of the incremental funds to 
develop these watershed-based plans in appropriate circumstances.
    To ensure that Section 319 projects funded with incremental dollars 
make progress towards restoring waters impaired by nonpoint source 
pollution, watershed-based plans that are developed or implemented with 
Section 319 funds to address 303(d)-listed waters must include at least 
the elements listed below. Where the watershed-based plan is designed 
to implement a TMDL, these elements will help provide reasonable 
assurance that the nonpoint source load allocations identified in the 
NPS TMDL or anticipated in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 
System (NPDES) permits for the watershed will be achieved, as discussed 
in the Assistant Administrator's August 8, 1997 memorandum, ``New 
Policies for Establishing and Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads 
(TMDLs).'' However, even if a NPS TMDL has not yet been completed, EPA 
believes that these nine elements are critical to assure that public 
funds to address impaired waters are used effectively. (See also 
Appendix C of the May 1996 Nonpoint Source Guidance for more discussion 
of a ``well-designed watershed implementation plan,'' which 
specifically discusses most of the elements listed below.)
    a. An identification of the causes and sources or groups of similar 
sources that will need to be controlled to achieve the load reductions 
estimated in this watershed-based plan (and to achieve any other 
watershed goals identified in the watershed-based plan), as discussed 
in item (b) immediately below. Sources that need to be controlled 
should be identified at the significant subcategory level with 
estimates of the extent to which they are present in the watershed 
(e.g., X numbers of dairy cattle feedlots needing upgrading, including 
a rough estimate of the number of cattle per facility; Y acres of row 
crops needing improved nutrient management or sediment control; or Z 
linear miles of eroded streambank needing remediation).

[[Page 54808]]

    b. An estimate of the load reductions expected for the management 
measures described under paragraph (c) below (recognizing the natural 
variability and the difficulty in precisely predicting the performance 
of management measures over time). Estimates should be provided at the 
same level as in item (a) above (e.g., the total load reduction 
expected for dairy cattle feedlots; row crops; or eroded streambanks).
    c. A description of the NPS management measures that will need to 
be implemented to achieve the load reductions estimated under paragraph 
(b) above (as well as to achieve other watershed goals identified in 
this watershed-based plan), and an identification (using a map or a 
description) of the critical areas in which those measures will be 
needed to implement this plan.
    d. An estimate of the amounts of technical and financial assistance 
needed, associated costs, and/or the sources and authorities that will 
be relied upon, to implement this plan. As sources of funding, States 
should consider the use of their Section 319 programs, State Revolving 
Funds, USDA's Environmental Quality Incentives Program and Conservation 
Reserve Program, and other relevant Federal, State, local and private 
funds that may be available to assist in implementing this plan.
    e. An information/education component that will be used to enhance 
public understanding of the project and encourage their early and 
continued participation in selecting, designing, and implementing the 
NPS management measures that will be implemented.
    f. A schedule for implementing the NPS management measures 
identified in this plan that is reasonably expeditious.
    g. A description of interim, measurable milestones for determining 
whether NPS management measures or other control actions are being 
implemented.
    h. A set of criteria that can be used to determine whether loading 
reductions are being achieved over time and substantial progress is 
being made towards attaining water quality standards and, if not, the 
criteria for determining whether this watershed-based plan needs to be 
revised or, if a NPS TMDL has been established, whether the NPS TMDL 
needs to be revised.
    i. A monitoring component to evaluate the effectiveness of the 
implementation efforts over time, measured against the criteria 
established under item (h) immediately above.
    In commenting on a draft of these guidelines, several States noted 
the difficulty of developing this information with precision and 
suggested that States should be authorized to begin implementing 
projects without having first developed some or all of this 
information. EPA believes, as this guidance reflects, that there must 
be a balanced approach to address this concern. On one hand, it is 
absolutely critical that States make, at the subcategory level, a 
reasonable effort to identify the significant sources; identify the 
management measures that will most effectively address those sources; 
and broadly estimate the expected load reductions that will result. 
Without such information to provide focus and direction to the 
project's implementation, it is much less likely that the project can 
efficiently and effectively address the nonpoint sources of water 
quality impairments. On the other hand, EPA recognizes that even with 
reasonable steps to obtain and analyze relevant data, the available 
information at the planning stage (within reasonable time and cost 
constraints) may be limited; preliminary information and estimates may 
need to be modified over time, accompanied by mid-course corrections in 
the watershed plan; and it often will require a number of years of 
effective implementation for a project to achieve its goals. EPA fully 
intends that the watershed planning process described above should be 
implemented in a dynamic and iterative manner to assure that projects 
whose plans address each of the nine elements above may proceed even 
though some of the information in the watershed plan is imperfect and 
may need to be modified over time as information improves.
    4. States must use any incremental funds that remain after Step 3 
above to implement watershed-based plans that have been completed. 
Regions should assure that the plans have been completed and address 
all of the nine elements prior to awarding the grant. To assure that 
the implementation of these watershed-based plans actually results in 
the restoration of watersheds, as well as to maximize efficiencies in 
the implementation of all watershed-based plans, we recommend that 
States use these incremental Section 319 funds on a watershed basis to 
develop and implement the watershed-based plans for all the waters 
impaired by nonpoint source pollution in a watershed. In addition, as 
in the plan development stage, we recommend that States' implementation 
activities also address other significant sources and pollutants in the 
watershed, including both those that are causing water quality 
impairments and others that are not currently causing water quality 
impairments but that nonetheless should be controlled to assure a 
successful long-term solution to the watershed's existing and 
threatened water quality problems.
    The watershed-based plan must address a large enough geographic 
area so that its implementation will solve the water quality problems 
for the watershed. While there is no rigorous definition or delineation 
for this concept, the general intent is to avoid single segments or 
other narrowly defined areas that do not provide an opportunity for 
addressing a watershed's stressors in a rational and economic manner. 
However, once a watershed plan meeting the nine items listed above has 
been established, a State may choose to implement it in portions (e.g., 
based on particular segments, other geographic subdivisions, or NPS 
categories in the watershed), consistent with the schedule established 
pursuant to item (f) above.
    We recognize that States already have in place or have been 
developing watershed plans and strategies of varying levels of scale, 
scope, and specificity that may contribute significantly to the process 
of developing and implementing watershed-based plans. We encourage 
States to use these plans and strategies, where appropriate, as 
building blocks for developing and implementing the watershed-based 
plans. (Where these plans and strategies have been developed at a 
basin-wide or other large geographic scale, they will generally need to 
be refined at a smaller watershed scale to provide the information 
needs for the nine items identified above as required for watershed-
based plans.) In particular, we recommend that States use their 
continuing planning processes, water quality management plans (WQMPs), 
WRASs, comprehensive conservation and management plans (CCMPs), coastal 
nonpoint pollution control programs under Section 6217 of the Coastal 
Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, and other similar holistic 
watershed documents, to help guide their watershed-based approaches to 
watershed-based plan development and implementation.
    We further recommend that States give their highest funding 
priority to projects that are supported by additional funding from 
other Federal, State, and local agencies, Clean Water State Revolving 
Funds (SRF), or private sector funding. Additionally, States should 
consult their SRF Program's Integrated Planning and Priority Setting 
System, if

[[Page 54809]]

such system is in use, to address the highest priority water quality 
improvement projects (see http://www.epa.gov/owm/finan.html). Given the 
significant expense of many watershed projects, such an approach will 
help expedite successful implementation of needed practices and thus 
speed the restoration of water quality. It will also help assure that 
watersheds are addressed in a holistic manner that accounts for the 
broad variety of stressors in the watersheds.

III. Protection of Threatened Waters

    While States need to place very high priority on the need to 
restore waters impaired by nonpoint source pollution, as described 
above, EPA wishes to recognize and emphasize the continued need to 
protect waters that currently are not impaired by nonpoint source 
pollution to assure that they remain unimpaired. This particularly 
includes waters in which the good quality is threatened by such factors 
as changing land uses. EPA recommends that States place a high priority 
for the use of their base Section 319 funding on such protective 
activity. This includes both on-the-ground projects and broader 
educational and regulatory programs established by the State to promote 
broad awareness and implementation of activities that can help protect 
these waters from degradation by new and expanded land use activities 
which cause nonpoint source pollution.
    EPA recognizes that in a few States, there is a uniquely high-
priority need to focus significant funds on prevention activities in 
addition to the need for remediating impaired waters. While all States 
have significant pollution prevention and water quality protection 
needs, there are certain States with extensive aquatic resources that 
are especially valuable and at serious risk of irreparable harm, 
including especially good-quality aquatic habitat for salmon migration, 
spawning, and rearing. Therefore, EPA Regions may authorize States to 
use a portion of incremental funds to the extent necessary to address 
these unique situations. Such variation from the norm is intended to 
occur in only a handful of States at most, and may be provided only 
upon a finding by the Region that:
     The State has extensive unique aquatic resources that are 
especially valuable and at serious risk of irreparable harm and that 
therefore require a special focus on protection activities. These 
resources and threats to them should be documented in the State's 
305(b) report.
     The State has established a schedule for TMDL development 
consistent with an even pace and completion of needed TMDLs within 8 to 
13 years of listing.
     The State is completing TMDLs in reasonable accord with 
the established development schedules.
     The State has committed, upon completion and approval of 
any TMDL, to incorporate the TMDL's load allocations into any watershed 
plan that has been developed for the waterbody addressed by the TMDL, 
as discussed above in this guidance in the third principle in the 
section ``Continued Focus On Restoring Waters Impaired By NPS 
Pollution.''
     The State is or commits to including loading reduction 
estimates in all Section 319 projects as required by EPA's September 
27, 2001, memorandum from Robert H. Wayland III entitled, 
``Modification to Nonpoint Source Reporting Requirements for Section 
319 Grants,'' http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/Section319/grts.html, and as 
discussed further below in the section ``Reporting NPS Results.''

IV. Operation and Maintenance

    Each Section 319 grant must contain a condition requiring that the 
State assure that its project sub-awards (e.g., sub-contracts and sub-
grants) include a provision that any management practices implemented 
for the project be properly operated and maintained for an appropriate 
period of years. Following the approach used in many State and Federal 
funding programs, EPA recommends that State provisions generally ensure 
that practices are operated and maintained for a period of at least 
five to ten years.
    For assistance in developing appropriate grant condition language, 
Regions should work with their Office of Regional Counsel. States may 
wish to consult with colleagues implementing similar programs, such as 
U.S. Department of Agriculture's conservation programs, for information 
on how to develop appropriate contract language and operation and 
maintenance periods that are tailored to the types of practices 
expected to be funded in a particular project.

V. Reporting NPS Results

    Section 319(h)(8) of the CWA requires EPA to determine, prior to 
awarding a Section 319 grant, that the State has made ``satisfactory 
progress'' in meeting the schedule set forth in its NPS management 
program. When making this determination, the Region should include in 
the decision memo for the grant a concise summary of the basis for the 
determination. In addition, Section 319(h)(11) requires that States 
report annually to EPA concerning their progress in meeting their 
schedules of milestones contained in their nonpoint source management 
programs and, to the extent that appropriate information is available, 
reductions in nonpoint source pollutant loading and improvements in 
water quality. These annual reports in turn can assist the Region in 
making the satisfactory progress determination required by Section 
319(h)(8).
    To provide a mechanism for the State to meet the reporting 
requirement in Section 319(h)(11), as well as assist in the 
dissemination of information on States' progress in implementing their 
NPS programs, EPA is now upgrading the nonpoint source grants computer-
based data system, the Grants Reporting and Tracking System (GRTS), 
which will include new and modified data elements to be reported by 
States. The most significant new mandated fields include the following: 
(1) Identify the location of the stream (or other waterbody) reach or 
reaches that are intended to be affected by each Section 319-funded 
project; (2) describe the project; (3) state whether the project 
consists of one or more of (a) the development of a NPS TMDL, (b) the 
development of a NPS TMDL implementation plan to achieve specific load-
reduction goals, (c) the actual implementation of such a plan or (d) 
none of the above; and (4) annually provide (for nitrogen, phosphorus, 
and/or sediments) an estimate of load reductions achieved by the 
project and (for streambank and wetlands protection or restoration 
projects) the linear feet of streambank, or acres of wetlands, 
protected or restored. EPA intends to use these data as a means of 
tracking and reporting to Congress and the public the progress being 
made by States to successfully implement their NPS TMDLs and other 
projects to improve water quality.
    To ensure that States meet the reporting requirement in section 
319(h)(11) by entering information into GRTS, Regions must require 
States to enter all mandated data elements into GRTS as part of their 
negotiation of the evaluation process and reports under 40 CFR 35.115, 
and include it as a condition in grant awards of Section 319 funds. 
Information that is available at the time of grant award (e.g., project 
location and description) should generally be entered into GRTS within 
3 months of the receipt of the grant or by a specific date agreed to by 
the Region and State. Other information should be entered at the 
appropriate time after project implementation has

[[Page 54810]]

begun (e.g., estimated load reductions would be reported annually once 
project implementation has progressed to the point that practices have 
been installed or implemented).
    The upgraded GRTS system, including text fields, will enable States 
to satisfy all of their annual reporting requirements through GRTS. 
However, many States are using their annual reports as a means to not 
only meet statutory reporting requirements but also to educate State 
legislatures, other agencies, and the public, of the progress that they 
are making through implementation of their nonpoint source programs. 
Therefore, States may find it most beneficial to publish a separate 
annual report, but to do so in a cost- and time-saving manner that 
borrows heavily from the project summaries and data reported in GRTS.

VI. Waiver Process

    Circumstances may arise which a State believes require it to 
develop and submit a work plan in a particular year that fails to meet 
one or more requirements in these guidelines. If such a circumstance 
arises, and the State believes that the circumstance justifies a waiver 
from one or more requirements in these guidelines, the State may submit 
a request for a waiver to EPA's Regional Water Division Director. The 
request should identify the requirement from which a waiver is 
requested; the circumstances requiring the waiver; a description of the 
activities and projects that the State will be implementing in lieu of 
those required by these guidelines; and a commitment to adhere to the 
guidelines to the greatest extent possible. The Regional Division 
Director may approve the waiver for the year requested with the 
concurrence of the Director of the Assessment and Watershed Protection 
Division.
    Please note that this waiver process applies only to the 
requirements established in these and previous Section 319 guidelines; 
it does not apply to any statutory or regulatory requirements 
reiterated in these guidelines. In addition, this process is not 
required for any Regional authorization of the use of more than 20% of 
incremental funds to develop watershed-based plans in appropriate 
circumstances as discussed earlier in this memorandum.

VII. Conclusion

    Significant challenges remain in our efforts to abate NPS 
pollution, protect threatened waters, and restore impaired aquatic 
resources. EPA will work with States to make the most effective use of 
Federal resources to meet these challenges.

Appendix A--Significant Nonpoint Source Grants Guidance Documents

    EPA has published several guidance documents that apply to the 
Section 319 grants guidance process. These documents are listed and 
briefly summarized below. Each of them may be reviewed online from 
the following address at EPA's nonpoint source Web site: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/cwact.html.
    (1) Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidance for Fiscal Years 
1997 and Future Years (May 1996). This 33-page document is the chief 
national nonpoint source program document. It describes criteria and 
processes for States and Territories to upgrade their nonpoint 
source management programs; summarizes statutory and regulatory 
provisions that apply to the award of nonpoint source grants; and 
provides guidance designed to assist States and Territories in 
implementing effective programs and projects.
    (2) Process and Criteria for Funding State and Territorial 
Nonpoint Source Management Programs in FY 1999 (August 18, 1998). 
This 6-page document established guidelines for the use of 
incremental dollars ($100 million) that were anticipated to be 
appropriated later that year. The guidance (1) authorized States and 
Territories to use up to 20 percent of their Section 319 funds to 
upgrade and refine their nonpoint source programs and assessments; 
(2) directed that the incremental dollars be focused upon 
implementation of watershed restoration action strategies in high-
priority watersheds identified by the States and Territories as not 
meeting clean water and other natural resource goals; and (3) 
established a schedule for the award of the incremental funds.
    (3) Funding the Development and Implementation of Watershed 
Restoration Action Strategies under Section 319 of the Clean Water 
Act (December 4, 1998). This 4-page document reiterated the priority 
placed on using the incremental $100 million to address the States' 
and Territories' high-priority watersheds that do not meet clean 
water and other natural resource goals, focused particularly in sub-
watersheds where NPS control activities are likely to have the 
greatest positive impact. It identified 303(d) sub-watersheds as 
high-priorities for such work.
    (4) Supplemental Guidance for the Award of Section 319 Nonpoint 
Source Grants in FY 2000 (December 21, 1999). This 10-page document 
(1) asked the Regions to assure that Section 319 grants that include 
programs or projects that assist animal feeding operations (AFO) 
include a provision to assure that any AFO which receives financial 
assistance under the grant has and will implement a comprehensive 
nutrient management plan; (2) recommended steps intended to achieve 
a suggestion by the congressional appropriations committees that 5 
percent of the Section 319 funds be allocated to clean lakes; and 
(3) announced and discussed EPA's intention to work with the States 
to consider changes to the Section 319 reporting/tracking system to 
support program needs, including promoting better integration with 
Section 305(b) data and Section 303(d) lists.
    (5) Supplemental Guidance for the Award of Section 319 Nonpoint 
Source Grants in FY 2001 (65 FR 70899-70905, Nov. 28, 2000). This 
document (1) discussed how States and Territories may use funding 
increases appropriated in FY 2001; (2) broadened the use of the 
``incremental'' ($100 million) to authorize their use to develop and 
implement the nonpoint source components of TMDLs in watersheds 
throughout the State; and (3) directed that each State or Territory 
with conditional approval under Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act 
Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (``CZARA'') devote at least 
$100,000 of its FY 2001 Section 319 grant dollars to specific 
actions that are designed to meet all outstanding conditions for 
NOAA and EPA approval.
    (6) Supplemental Guidelines for the Award of Section 319 
Nonpoint Source Grants to States and Territories in FY 2002 and 
Subsequent Years (66 FR 47653-47657, Sept. 13, 2001). This document 
(1) increased the focus of the ``incremental'' ($100 million) 
funding on developing TMDLs and watershed-based plans and 
implementing the watershed-based plans for 303(d)-listed waters 
throughout the State; (2) provided for a transition towards the new 
focus in FY 2002; (3) discussed the need for long-term operation and 
maintenance of practices funded with Section 319 funds; and (4) 
discussed pending changes in the GRTS reporting system.

    Dated: August 19, 2002.
Robert H. Wayland, III,
Director, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds.

[FR Doc. 02-21652 Filed 8-23-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P