[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 205 (Thursday, October 23, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60653-60674]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-26755]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-7577-6]


Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and 
Territories

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has developed guidelines for States' implementation of 
nonpoint source management programs under Section 319 of the Clean 
Water Act and for the award of Section 319 grants to States to 
implement those programs. These guidelines apply to grants appropriated 
by Congress in Fiscal Year 2004 and in subsequent years. The guidelines 
continue EPA's policy of focusing a significant portion of Section 319 
funds ($100 million annually) to address watersheds where nonpoint 
source pollution has resulted in impairment of water quality. The 
remaining funds are to be used by States to assist in their 
implementation of their broad array of programs and authorities to 
address all of the water quality threats and impairments caused by 
nonpoint source pollution.

DATES: The guidelines are effective October 23, 2003.

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.

    Dated: October 7, 2003.
Diane Regas,
Director, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds.

Preface

    These guidelines are built upon and replace the Nonpoint Source 
Program and Grants Guidance for Fiscal Year 1997 and Future Years (May 
1996), as well as all of the supplemental annual nonpoint source 
guidances and guidelines that have been published subsequently. The May 
1996 guidance was developed collaboratively in a series of highly 
productive meetings between key representatives of the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and senior representatives of 
State nonpoint source agencies from each of the ten EPA Regions. The 
guidance was endorsed by the President of the Association of State and 
Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA) as well as 
by the State Co-Chair of the State/EPA Nonpoint Source Program 
Workgroup in a Forward which stated, ``This guidance represents a sound 
framework for setting the future course of the nonpoint source 
program.''
    Nonpoint source pollution continues to be, and is increasingly 
recognized by the public as, the largest remaining source of water 
quality impairments in the nation. State and Territory (hereinafter 
collectively referred to as ``State'') nonpoint source programs, 
originally developed and approved under Section 319 of the Clean Water

[[Page 60654]]

Act in 1989-90, have developed and matured to meet this challenge. 
During the past five years, each State has upgraded its nonpoint source 
management program to address nine key elements that had been agreed to 
by the States and EPA in the May 1996 guidance.
    In the intervening years since 1996, States have enhanced their 
technical tools and capabilities, strengthened and increased their 
partnerships, nurtured a vast network of community-based action on a 
watershed basis, and, in many cases, developed stronger financial bases 
and legal support for their upgraded programs. As a result, the nation 
is experiencing increasingly positive results in terms of both on-the-
ground action and actual water quality improvements. Examples of these 
improvements are summarized in Section 319 Success Stories, Volume III: 
The Successful Implementation of the Clean Water Act's Section 319 
Nonpoint Source Pollution Program (EPA 841-S-01-001, February 2002), 
available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/Section319III. 
Most of these successes are the direct result of State nonpoint source 
agencies' cooperation with other governmental agencies, private sector 
interests, and citizen groups at the State and watershed level.
    Congress has also recognized the need for greater and more 
effective action to expedite our national efforts to control nonpoint 
source pollution and to focus our attention on sources of nonpoint 
pollution that contribute to impairment of waters. During the past four 
years of Congressional appropriations, Congress has increased its 
appropriations from $105 million in FY 1998 to $238.4 million in FY 
2003 to help States focus more resources upon the restoration of 
impaired waters as well as to generally implement more robust programs.
    Despite all of these program improvements, EPA, States, and all of 
our partners have continued to face daunting challenges in our efforts 
to implement nonpoint source programs that will protect both our good-
quality and threatened waters and restore those that are impaired. To 
improve States' and EPA's ability to meet these remaining challenges, 
as well as to implement new directives or recommendations from 
Congress, EPA has in the past few years issued supplements to the May 
1996 guidance. These have been particularly designed to focus increased 
attention on waters that are most in need of attention, especially 
those waters that remain impaired even after all required technology-
based controls for point sources have been implemented (i.e., those 
waters that have been listed by States under Section 303(d) of the 
Clean Water Act as needing total maximum daily loads (TMDLs)). They 
have also addressed the recognized need to improve EPA's and States' 
ability to account for our accomplishments as well as shortcomings in 
implementing the national nonpoint source program.
    EPA recognizes that these periodic issuances of supplemental 
guidance have made it more difficult to follow and comprehend the 
current national nonpoint source program, its central themes, and its 
priorities. For this reason, EPA is today publishing new guidelines 
that build upon and replace the Nonpoint Source Program and Grants 
Guidance for Fiscal Year 1997 and Future Years (May 1996) as well as 
all of the supplemental annual guidance and grants guidelines that have 
been published subsequently.
    These new guidelines do not significantly modify the previous set 
of guidance documents. For the most part, they consolidate the 
pertinent portions of earlier guidance documents in a cohesive manner; 
eliminate or shorten discussion of program aspects that have reduced 
relevance to future activities (such as the upgrading of States' 
nonpoint source management programs, which all of the States have 
successfully completed), and clarify certain issues that States and 
Regions have raised from time to time with regard to the program's 
implementation during the past several years.
    The concepts presented in these guidelines, such as the emphases on 
watershed-based planning and on restoring impaired waters through 
developing and implementing TMDLs, represent the current state of the 
art in fashioning watershed-based solutions to prevent and remedy water 
quality problems. These guidelines have benefitted significantly from a 
multi-year, evolving process working with States (e.g., through the 
``State/EPA Nonpoint Source Partnership'' initiated in 2000). EPA looks 
forward to continuing to work with the States and our other partners to 
implement an effective and successful nonpoint source program that 
makes rapid progress towards our goals of eliminating our remaining 
water quality problems and preventing new threats from creating future 
impairments.

Table of Contents

Preface
Table of Contents
I. Our Vision
II. Introduction
    A. Statutory Background
    B. Scope of These Guidelines
    C. Watershed Protection and Total Maximum Daily Loads
III. Nonpoint Source Management Programs
    A. Progress to Date
    B. Continued Focus on Restoring Waters Impaired by Nonpoint 
Source Pollution
    C. Integrating Other Environmental Protection Programs
    D. Watershed-Based Plans
    E. Scale and Scope of Watershed-Based Plans
    F. Monitoring our Progress
    1. Environmental Indicators
    2. Monitoring in Watershed Projects
    3. National Monitoring Program
IV. Grants
    A. Relationship to Performance Partnership Grants
    B. Funding Process
    1. Allocation of Funds
    2. Schedule for Awarding Section 319 Grants
    a. Background
    b. Six-Step Process to Awarding Section 319 Grants
    C. Grant Eligibility
    1. Ground-Water Activities and Source Water Protection Programs
    2. Urban Storm Water Runoff
    3. Abandoned Mine Lands
    4. Animal Feeding Operations
    5. Lake Protection and Restoration Activities
    D. Criteria That Apply to the Award of Section 319 Grants
    1. The Work Plan Must Demonstrate That Each Funded Element Will 
Implement Specific Activities Identified in the Approved Management 
Program
    2. Section 319 Grants Must be Awarded as Continuing 
Environmental Program Grants
    3. The Non-Federal Share Must Be At Least 40 Percent
    4. Section 319 May Provide Cost Sharing to Individuals Only in 
the Case of Demonstration Projects
    5. The State Must Demonstrate Satisfactory Progress
    6. States Must Maintain their Level of Effort
    7. Administrative Costs Funded by Section 319 Funds May Not 
Exceed 10% of the Grant Award
    8. Section 319 Grants Must Contain a Condition Requiring 
Operation and Maintenance
    E. Reporting Requirements to be Included in all Grants
    1. Basic Reporting Requirements
    a. Grantee Performance Reports
    b. Annual Reports
    c. Financial Status Reports
    2. Reporting Procedures and the Grants Reporting and Tracking 
System
    3. STORET
    4. Reporting and Record-Keeping for Sub-State Organizations
V. Management and Oversight of Section 319(h) Grants
VI. Grants to Indian Tribes
VII. Waiver Process
VIII. Appendices
    A. Measures and Indicators of Progress and Success
    B. Generic Grant Condition Establishing State Reporting 
Requirements

[[Page 60655]]

    C. Nationally Mandated Data Elements Under Grants Reporting and 
Tracking System
    D. Factors in Planning Target Formula
    E. State-By-State Section 319 Allocation
    F. Generic Grant Condition Regarding Watershed-Based Plans

I. Our Vision

    Our long-term vision, established by EPA and the States in 1996, 
remains: All States and territories implement dynamic and effective 
nonpoint source programs designed to achieve and maintain beneficial 
uses of water.

II. Introduction

A. Statutory Background

    Congress enacted Section 319 of the Clean Water Act in 1987, 
establishing a national program to control nonpoint sources of water 
pollution. Nonpoint source pollution is caused by rainfall or snowmelt 
moving over and through the ground and carrying natural and human-made 
pollutants into lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands, estuaries, other 
coastal waters, and ground water. Atmospheric deposition and hydrologic 
modification are also sources of nonpoint pollution.
    Under Section 319(a), all States and Territories (hereinafter 
collectively referred to as ``States'') have addressed nonpoint source 
pollution by developing nonpoint source assessment reports that 
identify nonpoint source pollution problems and the nonpoint sources 
responsible for the water quality problems. Under Section 319(b), all 
States have also adopted management programs to control nonpoint source 
pollution. Since 1990, Congress has annually appropriated grant funds 
to States under Section 319(h) to help them to implement those 
management programs.

B. Scope of These Guidelines

    These guidelines are primarily directed towards nonpoint source 
management programs and grants administered by State lead nonpoint 
source agencies designated under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act. 
Indian Tribes that have approved nonpoint source assessments and 
management programs and also have ``treatment-as-a-State'' status may 
also administer nonpoint source management programs and grants under 
Section 319 of the Clean Water Act. Apart from providing a brief 
overview in Section VI below, these guidelines are not specifically 
directed to Tribal nonpoint source management. Because of differing 
statutory provisions that apply to Tribes, EPA publishes separate 
guidance for Tribal nonpoint source programs and grants.
    For grants awarded in FY 2004 and subsequent years, these 
guidelines supersede and replace all of the following guidance 
documents: Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidance for Fiscal Year 
1997 and Future Years (May 1996); Process and Criteria for Funding 
State and Territorial Nonpoint Source Management Programs in FY 1999 
(August 18, 1998); Funding the Development and Implementation of 
Watershed Restoration Action Strategies under Section 319 of the Clean 
Water Act (December 4, 1998); Supplemental Guidance for the Award of 
Section 319 Nonpoint Source Grants in FY 2000 (December 21, 1999); 
Supplemental Guidelines for the Award of Section 319 Nonpoint Source 
Grants in FY 2001 (November 28, 2000; 65 FR 70899); Supplemental 
Guidelines for the Award of Section 319 Nonpoint Source Grants to 
States and Territories in FY 2002 and Subsequent Years (September 13, 
2001; 66 FR 47653); and Supplemental Guidelines for the Award of 
Section 319 Nonpoint Source Grants to States and Territories in FY 2003 
(August 26, 2002; 67 FR 54806). (While these superceded guidance 
documents will no longer directly apply to State programs, they contain 
useful background information and will remain available for reference 
at EPA's nonpoint source Web site at http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/cwact.html.)
    These guidelines are intended to serve as the basis for a 
nationally consistent approach for State nonpoint source management 
programs and grants. Therefore, EPA Regions will not issue separate, 
supplemental guidelines specifically for State nonpoint source programs 
or grants. If particular Regional circumstances require additional 
clarifications on a particular issue, the Region will consult with the 
affected States and with EPA Headquarters on the appropriate next 
steps.

C. Watershed Protection and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)

    EPA has been working with the States to realign our programs to 
strengthen our support for watershed-based environmental protection, 
whereby local stakeholders join forces to develop and implement 
watershed-based plans that make good sense for the particular 
conditions found within their communities. The watershed approach is a 
coordinating framework for management that focuses public and private 
sector efforts to address the highest priority water-related problems 
within geographic areas, considering both surface and ground water 
flow. The watershed approach is commonly characterized by four 
principles: (a) Diverse, well integrated partnerships; (b) a specific 
geographic focus; (c) action driven by environmental objectives and by 
strong science and data; and (d) coordinated priority setting and 
integrated solutions.
    These guidelines are intended to help advance the watershed 
approach as a means for resolving and preventing nonpoint source 
pollution problems and threats. In the initial stages of the national 
nonpoint source program, some States and EPA Regions focused their 
nonpoint source programs narrowly on demonstrations of particular 
technologies, supported by Federal Section 319 grants. In upgrading 
their nonpoint source programs during the last few years, many States 
have incorporated watershed-based approaches as a significant and 
sometimes central organizing theme of their programs. As a result, 
State nonpoint source programs have improved their capacity to solve 
nonpoint source pollution problems at the watershed scale. At the same 
time, EPA and the States have sharpened our focus upon waterbodies 
listed by States as impaired under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water 
Act. This is particularly critical, as nonpoint source pollution is 
reported by States and others to be responsible for the majority of 
remaining water pollution in the United States. The two key steps 
needed to solve nonpoint source problems within a watershed context are 
the development of a watershed-based plan that addresses a waterbody's 
water quality needs (including the incorporation of any TMDLs that have 
been developed) and the actual implementation of the plan.
    These guidelines discuss the use of detailed watershed-based plans 
to help solve water quality problems at the watershed level. As 
discussed in more detail in Section III.D below, careful analysis of 
the sources of water quality problems, their relative contributions to 
the problems, and alternatives to solve those problems, provide the 
best basis for sound decision-making and implementation that will 
actually solve those water quality problems. For this reason, these 
guidelines emphasize using watershed-based planning and implementation 
processes to solve water quality problems using Section 319 funds.

[[Page 60656]]

III. Nonpoint Source Management Programs

A. Progress to Date

    Nonpoint source pollution continues to be, and is increasingly 
recognized as, the largest remaining threat to water quality and source 
of water quality impairments in the nation. State nonpoint source 
programs, originally developed and approved under Section 319 of the 
Clean Water Act in 1989-90, have developed and matured to meet this 
challenge. Pursuant to the May 1996 guidance, each State and Territory 
has upgraded its nonpoint source management program to address nine key 
elements that had been agreed to by the States and EPA in the May 1996 
guidance. These nine elements include explicit short- and long-term 
goals, objectives, and strategies to protect and restore water quality; 
strengthened working partnerships with appropriate State, interstate, 
Tribal, regional and local entities, private sector groups, citizens 
groups, and Federal agencies; balanced approaches that emphasize both 
State-wide programs and on-the-ground management of individual 
watersheds where waters are impaired or threatened; focus on both 
abating existing problems and preventing new ones; and using a periodic 
feedback loop to evaluate progress and make appropriate program 
revisions.
    Since 1996, States have enhanced their technical tools and 
capabilities, strengthened and expanded their partnerships, nurtured a 
vast network of community-based action on a watershed basis, and, in 
many cases, developed stronger financial bases and legal support for 
their programs. As a result, the nation is experiencing increasingly 
positive results in terms of both on-the-ground action and actual water 
quality improvements. Examples of these improvements are summarized in 
Section 319 Success Stories, Volume III: The Successful Implementation 
of the Clean Water Act's Section 319 Nonpoint Source Pollution Program 
(EPA 841-S-01-001, February 2002). Most of these successes are the 
direct result of State nonpoint source agencies' cooperation with other 
governmental agencies, private sector interests, and citizen groups at 
the State and watershed level.
    In addition, to further strengthen our collective efforts to 
implement successful nonpoint source control programs, the States and 
EPA have been implementing since FY 2000 a new State/EPA Nonpoint 
Source Partnership. The purpose of this new cooperative process has 
been to identify, prioritize, and address the States' needs for 
technical, programmatic, and financial assistance to overcome any 
remaining obstacles to successfully implementing States' nonpoint 
source programs. The partnership consists of a State/EPA Steering 
Committee and workgroups to help identify and solve States' highest-
priority nonpoint source needs, including: watershed planning and 
implementation; nonpoint source capacity building and funding; grants 
management; information transfer and outreach; monitoring; documenting 
nonpoint source results; rural nonpoint sources; and urban nonpoint 
sources.

B. Continued Focus on Restoring Waters Impaired by Nonpoint Source 
Pollution

    While we and our partners are achieving considerable success 
nationwide, significant challenges remain. Since publication of the May 
1996 guidance, EPA's and States' nonpoint source programs have 
continued to evolve to meet these challenges. Beginning in FY 1999, EPA 
and the States have increased our focus on solving water quality 
problems in those waterbodies that are most in need of attention, 
including those waters that remain impaired even after all point source 
technological controls have been implemented (i.e., those that have 
been listed by States under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act as 
needing TMDLs).
    In FY 1999 and again in FY 2000, EPA asked Congress to double 
Section 319 funding from $100 million to $200 million. The purpose of 
the incremental $100 million was to develop and implement watershed 
restoration action strategies (WRASs) in high-priority ``Category I'' 
watersheds (sized at the 8-digit ``hydrologic unit code'' level). In FY 
2001, EPA recognized the need to increasingly focus Section 319 grant 
dollars on implementing nonpoint source TMDLs or the nonpoint source 
components of mixed-source TMDLs (hereafter, both of these types of 
TMDLs will be referred to as ``NPS TMDLs''). Based on this need, EPA 
directed that incremental funds be used to develop and implement 
approved NPS TMDLs for any 303(d)-listed waterbodies (whether or not 
these were located within a Category I watershed), as well as to 
develop and implement WRASs. In FY 2002 and 2003, EPA shifted the focus 
of the incremental funds entirely to developing NPS TMDLs, developing 
watershed-based plans to implement the TMDLs, and implementing the 
plans. The FY 2003 guidelines provided that 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. The FY 2003 guidelines 
further recognized that 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 FY 2003 guidelines required that the plan be 
designed to reduce nonpoint source pollutant loadings that are 
contributing to non-attainment of water quality standards. Once the 
TMDL is completed and approved, the plan was required to be modified as 
appropriate to be consistent with the TMDL.
    The guidelines published today for FY 2004 and future years 
maintain the approach of focusing $100 million of annual Section 319 
funds on the development and implementation of watershed-based plans to 
achieve NPS TMDLs. NPS TMDLs, together with watershed-based plans 
designed to implement the NPS TMDLs, provide the necessary analytic 
link between actions on the ground and the water quality results to be 
achieved. In the absence of such an analytic framework, it is difficult 
to develop and implement a watershed project that will achieve water 
quality standards, or to determine causes of failure when that occurs. 
Therefore, EPA believes that continuing to focus on an analytic and 
implementation framework that integrates NPS TMDLs, watershed-based 
plans to implement these NPS TMDLs, and actual implementation of those 
plans, will provide the most effective means to accelerate achievement 
of water quality standards.
    For these reasons, EPA will continue to implement the general 
approach that we have developed during the past few years and finalized 
in FY 2003, using the steps outlined below. These steps are designed to 
promote the development and implementation of NPS TMDLs based upon the 
TMDL regulations that have been published at 40 CFR 130.7 in 1985 and 
1992, as well as guidance published by EPA to assist in the 
implementation of those regulations. (Currently applicable guidance as 
well as other technical and other resources concerning the TMDL program 
is available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl.)
General Principles for Awarding Section 319 Grants
    Each year, EPA will award Section 319 grants in accordance with the 
following four principles:
    1. States may use the ``base funds'' (i.e., all Section 319 funds 
other than the ``incremental funds'' described below) for the full 
range of activities addressed in their approved nonpoint source

[[Page 60657]]

management programs. Thus these funds may be used both for protection 
of unimpaired waters and for restoration of impaired waters. For 
example, States may use these funds to protect sources of drinking 
water, critical high-quality waters, and threatened waters from current 
and future threats.
    In general, States have great flexibility as to how to use these 
base funds. They may use the watershed-based approaches discussed in 
greater detail in Section III.D below (``Watershed-Based Plans''). 
States may also choose to use these funds to implement technology-based 
approaches. In particular, EPA recommends that coastal States use these 
funds to assist in the implementation of both the technology-based and 
water-quality-based management measures contained in their coastal 
nonpoint pollution control programs under Section 6217 of the Coastal 
Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (``CZARA'').
    2. States may use up to 20% of the base funds to develop NPS TMDLs 
(consistent with their TMDL development schedule) and watershed-based 
plans to implement NPS TMDLs; develop watershed-based plans in the 
absence of or prior to completion of TMDLs (incorporating the TMDL's 
load allocations once it has been completed and approved); develop 
watershed-based plans that focus on the protection of threatened 
waters, source water, or other high-priority unimpaired waters; and 
conduct other NPS monitoring and program assessment/development 
activities. (Monitoring the results of implementing a watershed project 
is not subject to this 20% limitation.)
    3. Except as noted in the next paragraph, States must use $100 
million of Section 319 funds (referred to as ``incremental funds'') to 
develop and implement watershed-based plans that address nonpoint 
source impairments in watersheds that contain Section 303(d)-listed 
waters. (However, these plans may also include activities that address 
waterbodies within the watershed that are not currently impaired where 
appropriate to prevent future impairments within the watershed.) 
Regions will include in each grant a condition that provides that the 
State will use these funds to implement a watershed-based plan only 
after the State completes the development of a watershed-based plan 
that addresses each of the watershed planning elements (a) through (i) 
that are listed later in this section. (See Appendix F to these 
guidelines.)
    Regions may authorize States to use a portion of incremental funds 
to address watersheds that do not include impaired waters in special 
circumstances where it is necessary to address a uniquely high-priority 
State 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 good water quality is threatened 
by such factors as changing land uses and the presence of unique 
aquatic resources that are especially valuable and at serious risk of 
irreparable harm and that therefore require a special focus on 
protection activities (e.g., aquatic habitat for salmon migration, 
spawning, and rearing). These resources and threats to them should be 
documented in the State's 305(b) report. Prior to authorizing use of 
incremental funds to address a uniquely high-priority State need, the 
Region must find the State has established a schedule for TMDL 
development for its NPS-impaired waters 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; and the State is making reasonable progress 
developing and implementing watershed-based plans to implement NPS 
TMDL's, balancing the State's protection and restoration needs.
    4. States may use up to 20% of the $100 million incremental funds 
to develop: NPS TMDLs; watershed-based plans to implement NPS TMDLs; 
and watershed-based plans in the absence of or prior to completion of 
TMDLs in Section 303(d)-listed waters (incorporating the TMDL's load 
allocations once it has been completed and approved). The Region may 
authorize the State to use over 20% of the incremental funding to 
develop watershed-based plans in Section 303(d)-listed waters, but the 
Region should assure that a proper balance exists between funding the 
development of watershed-based plans and the implementation of 
watershed-based plans. On one hand, funding should support the 
development of watershed plans at a sufficient pace to support 
implementation efforts that may be implemented through 319 funding; 
funding from a separate State or Federally-supported program (e.g., via 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture); or other programs or mechanisms. 
See further discussion in the next section below on integrating other 
environmental protection programs. On the other hand, watershed-based 
plan development should not be funded at a pace that significantly 
exceeds the pace of implementation. This is necessary to maximize 
implementation of watershed-based plans that have been completed and 
minimize the development of numerous plans that ``sit on the shelf.''

C. Integrating Other Environmental Protection Programs

    As discussed in the preceding paragraph, these guidelines authorize 
Regions to increase the level of incremental funding that is available 
to develop watershed-based plans (previously limited to 20%) so long as 
a proper balance exists between funding the development of watershed-
based plans and the implementation of watershed-based plans. Such an 
increase may well be warranted where non-319 resources may be available 
to help implement the plans. EPA encourages States to leverage funding 
from other environmental protection programs to support the 
implementation of these plans, as discussed below.
USDA-Supported Programs
    EPA wishes to particularly emphasize the significant benefits of 
working closely with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 
to achieve our common goals of improving restoration and protection of 
water quality. This is especially important in light of the new Farm 
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Farm Bill), which presents 
tremendous opportunities for integrating funding and other resources 
and for creating partnerships to help achieve our common goals, 
including meeting water quality standards. Information about 
partnership opportunities through programs such as the Environmental 
Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) can be found on the internet at 
http://www.usda.gov/farmbill and http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/farmbill/2002. Most notably, USDA's EQIP regulations have assigned a 
top priority to reducing nonpoint source pollution in impaired 
watersheds consistent with TMDLs, where available, and this priority 
will be used as a guide in the allocation of EQIP funds.
    It is important to consider how Section 319 funding can be used in 
a way that does not duplicate, but rather complements, these other 
programs. Section 319 funding is especially suitable to support 
activities that are either not eligible for or typically do not receive 
significant USDA funding, including: (1) Developing watershed-based 
plans in Section 303(d)-listed and other high priority watersheds; (2) 
monitoring water quality in high priority watersheds to design and 
assess the effectiveness of watershed-based plans; and (3) funding 
watershed coordinators to work with local

[[Page 60658]]

communities to help assist and promote the development and 
implementation of watershed-based plans. The planning and development 
of such watershed-based plans should be done in coordination with local 
communities, Conservation Districts, agricultural producers, and other 
watershed stakeholders in a cooperative way that will result in locally 
led partnerships, with USDA support, choosing to implement the plan. 
Achieving local buy-in and commitment to implement watershed-based 
plans once they are complete is key to successful watershed planning 
and implementation.
    USDA's primary conservation funding programs (Environmental Quality 
Incentives Program, Conservation Reserve Program, and Wetlands Reserve 
Program) are particularly well-designed to support the implementation 
of both agricultural best management practices (BMPs) and a suite of 
conservation, restoration, and land retirement measures for wetlands, 
riparian areas, and other areas of critical importance to the success 
of watershed-based plans. States should strive to work with the 
agricultural community to accomplish win-win situations whereby Farm 
Bill funds are actively used to support the implementation of 
watershed-based plans developed under Section 319. Where this approach 
is successful, Section 319 funds could be focused (in addition to 
monitoring, planning, and providing coordination support for projects) 
on the implementation of agricultural BMPs that are not eligible for 
Farm Bill funding (e.g., BMPs that are not in the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service's Field Office Technical Guide of conservation 
standards); implementation of agricultural projects in concert with 
other agencies and groups to help solve watershed problems; and 
promoting and testing emerging technologies.
    EPA recognizes that situations will arise where a State 
appropriately places a high priority on implementing agricultural 
components of a watershed-based plan for which Farm Bill funding is not 
being provided, or is available at only modest levels that require 
supplementation with Section 319 funds. State and watershed managers 
should certainly take advantage of whatever funding sources and 
mechanisms are the best available and most appropriate to accomplish 
their watershed goals. In most cases, the resources needed to implement 
an entire watershed-based plan will be significant, and success will 
depend greatly on enlisting and obtaining the support of all important 
stakeholders and the resources that they can provide, including 
especially the resources made available by Congress through the Farm 
Bill.
Other Environmental Programs
    In addition to USDA-supported programs, many other programs that 
are implemented at the Federal and State level have common and 
overlapping areas with the Section 319 program. States' activities to 
upgrade their nonpoint source programs in recent years have 
strengthened their links with these various State and Federal programs. 
Today's guidelines particularly encourage the integration of State 
nonpoint source management programs with other environmental programs 
by providing for increased Section 319 funding support for the 
development and implementation of watershed-based plans. Such 
integration provides a vehicle for cooperative design and 
implementation of watershed-based plans in a coordinated manner that 
employ the resources, authorities, and expertise of all relevant 
programs.
    A number of EPA/State programs are closely related to nonpoint 
source pollution control and to watershed protection. To maximize 
effectiveness, State nonpoint source programs need to continue to be 
well integrated with these other State programs to best meet States' 
water quality needs. These include:
    [sbull] The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 
point source program, particularly with respect to urban runoff, 
construction, inactive and abandoned mines, concentrated animal feeding 
operations, and marinas;
    [sbull] Coastal protection programs, including especially coastal 
nonpoint pollution control programs under Section 6217 of the Coastal 
Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA, co-administered by 
EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and co-
implemented by our State counterparts), as well as the National Estuary 
Program;
    [sbull] Wetlands protection programs implemented under Section 404 
of the Clean Water Act as well as pursuant to a variety of other 
Federal and State authorities and programs;
    [sbull] Source water protection programs under the Safe Drinking 
Water Act;
    [sbull] Clean Lakes programs and wetlands protection and 
restoration programs under the Clean Water Act;
    [sbull] Watershed planning programs; and
    [sbull] Ambient monitoring programs.
    In addition to coordinating program implementation with these 
various programs, State NPS program mangers should coordinate their 
funding needs with other CWA sources of funding. Most significant is 
the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) under Title VI of the Clean 
Water Act. The SRF is currently providing over $200 million annually to 
control pollution from nonpoint sources and for estuary protection. 
However, most States have under-utilized this resource to date. EPA 
believes that the SRF is particularly well suited to assisting in the 
implementation of nonpoint source projects requiring capital 
investment. States are encouraged to increase their use of this copious 
financial resource to help implement their nonpoint source watershed-
based plans and other nonpoint source projects. For more information on 
the SRF program, see http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/index.htm.
    In addition to coordinating with these water quality programs, 
States should coordinate with programs administered by the Federal land 
management agencies (e.g., Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, 
and National Park Service), water management agencies (e.g., Bureau of 
Reclamation, Corps of Engineers, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
and Tennessee Valley Authority), and resource management agencies. For 
example, Section 319 funds may be used to benefit Federal lands, which 
strengthens the ability of States to coordinate nonpoint source and 
TMDL implementation with Federal land management programs and policies.
    Finally, two other Federal agencies whose policies and practices 
can greatly influence and/or protect riparian areas, wetlands, and 
other sensitive areas and corridors are the Department of 
Transportation and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Both of 
these agencies have programs that can help protect these areas or 
mitigate potential impairment to these areas, and both have funding 
programs that can be used to benefit water quality. EPA strongly 
encourages States to work with these partner agencies to achieve common 
goals.

D. Watershed-Based Plans

    These guidelines promote the use of Section 319 funding for 
developing and implementing watershed-based plans to protect unimpaired 
waters and restore impaired waters. Watershed-based plans to restore 
impaired waters are required, as described above, for all projects 
implemented with incremental dollars. However, even for watershed 
projects implemented with base funds, EPA recommends that whenever 
feasible, watershed-based plans be developed

[[Page 60659]]

and implemented for all watershed projects, whether they are designed 
to protect unimpaired waters, restore impaired waters, or both.
    For projects funded with incremental dollars, 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 Section 319 funds to develop a 
watershed-based plan in the absence of the TMDL. In such cases, the 
plan must be designed to reduce nonpoint source pollutant loadings that 
are contributing to water quality threats and impairments. Where 
feasible, the plan should be designed to meet water quality standards. 
In this way, progress towards achieving water quality standards 
continues even before a TMDL is established. 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. 
Alternatively, through the course of implementing the plan, the State 
may find that water quality standards are met, obviating the need to 
establish the TMDL. EPA believes that improving the integration of 
TMDLs and watershed plans to implement nonpoint source management 
measures will provide the most effective means for accelerating 
achievement of water quality standards.
    To ensure that Section 319 projects make good progress towards 
remediating waters impaired by nonpoint source pollution, a watershed-
based plan must have been completed before a State implements a 
watershed-based plan funded with incremental Section 319 dollars. These 
watershed-based plans must include the information set forth in items 
(a)-(i) below. This information will help provide assurance that the 
nonpoint source load allocations identified in the NPS TMDL (and/or 
anticipated in NPDES permits for the watershed) will be achieved. 
Furthermore, this information is critical in any case for ensuring the 
development of realistic plans to achieve protection goals or water 
quality standards, while at the same time providing a significant 
degree of flexibility to work with stakeholders in the watershed to use 
a range of innovative approaches to implement the plan.
    To the extent that necessary information already exists in other 
documents (e.g., various State and local watershed planning documents, 
or watershed plans developed to help implement conservation programs 
administered by USDA), the information may be incorporated by 
reference. In addition, we encourage States to incorporate by reference 
any voluminous material that already exists in other documents. Thus, 
the State need not duplicate any existing process or document that 
already provides needed information.
Components of a Watershed-Based Plan
    Beginning in FY 2004, the following information must be included in 
watershed-based plans to restore waters impaired by nonpoint source 
pollution using incremental Section 319 funds. These requirements are 
not retroactive to watershed plans developed in accordance with the FY 
2002 or FY 2003 Section 319 guidelines; those plans may continue to be 
developed and implemented with funds available in FY 2004 and future 
years in accordance with the previously applicable requirements of the 
Section 319 guidelines.
    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 number 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).
    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.
    EPA recognizes the difficulty of developing the information 
described above with precision and, as this guidance reflects, believes 
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

[[Page 60660]]

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 
with plans that contain the information 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.

E. Scale and Scope of Watershed-Based Plans

    The watershed-based plan must address a large enough geographic 
area so that its implementation will address all of the sources and 
causes of impairments and threats to the waterbody in question. These 
plans should include mixed ownership watersheds when appropriate to 
solve the water quality problems (e.g., Federal, State, and private 
lands). 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. 
At the same time, the scale should not be so large as to minimize the 
probability of successful implementation. Once a watershed plan that 
contains the information identified in Section III.D has been 
established, a State may choose to implement it in prioritized portions 
(e.g., based on particular segments, other geographic subdivisions, 
nonpoint source categories in the watershed, or specific pollutants or 
impairments), consistent with the schedule established pursuant to item 
(f) above.
    EPA recognizes 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. In doing so, to the extent that other documents contain the 
information identified above in Section III.D, this information may be 
incorporated by reference into States' watershed-based plans. (Where 
these plans and strategies have been developed at a large geographic 
scale, they will in many cases need to be refined at a smaller 
watershed scale to provide the information needed to produce effective 
watershed-based plans.) In particular, we recommend that States use 
their continuing planning processes, water quality management plans 
(WQMPs), Watershed Restoration Action Strategies (WRASs), comprehensive 
conservation and management plans (CCMPs), CZARA programs, and other 
similar holistic watershed documents, to help guide their watershed-
based approaches to watershed-based plan development and 
implementation.
    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, including both surface 
and ground water that serve as sources of drinking water. 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 further recommend that States give their highest funding 
priority to projects that are supported by additional funding from 
other Federal, State, and local agencies (particularly USDA-supported 
programs), SRF, or private sector funding. Additionally, States should 
consult their SRF Program's Integrated Planning and Priority Setting 
System, if 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.

F. Monitoring Our Progress

    As States continue to strengthen their focus upon restoring waters 
that have been listed as impaired on their Section 303(d) lists, as 
well as to protect waters that are currently not impaired, it is 
critical that they monitor both: (1) the progress that they are making 
towards achieving and maintaining water quality standards; and (2) the 
implementation of their programs and projects to assure that they are 
successfully implemented. In Section IV.E below, we discuss the use of 
the Section 319 program's Grants Reporting and Tracking System (GRTS) 
to track implementation of programs and projects, estimate pollutant 
load reductions, and report the amount of acres of wetlands and feet of 
riparian areas protected or restored. In addition, EPA's Watershed 
Assessment, Tracking and Environmental Results (WATERS) Information 
System, which combines a variety of water quality information, 
including that which is developed by States in Section 305(b) reports 
and 303(d) lists, will provide information that indicates when an 
impaired waterbody achieves water quality standards. (For more general 
information on WATERS, and on the Consolidated Assessment and Listing 
Methodology (CALM) that supports the 305(b) and 303(d) processes, see 
http://www.epa.gov/waters and http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/calm.html.)
    There are a variety of technical tools that can be used by States 
to monitor their progress at a program or project level. EPA strongly 
encourages States to enter their water quality monitoring data, for 
data collected in a waterbody pursuant to the implementation of a 
Section 319 project, into EPA's ``storage and retrieval'' (STORET) data 
system. States that are not yet prepared to use STORET for storage of 
data generated in the development and implementation of Section 319 
watershed projects should in the interim store their assessment in an 
accessible electronic database.
    We discuss some recommended tools and methods immediately below. In 
addition, States with approved CZARA programs are responsible under 
CZARA for monitoring and tracking progress through successful 
implementation of CZARA management measures. EPA has also published 
several detailed guidance documents to assist States and others in 
conducting monitoring programs to both track implementation and 
determine the success of on-the-ground projects in achieving water-
quality-improvement goals. See Monitoring Guidance for Determining the 
Effectiveness of Nonpoint Source Controls (U.S.

[[Page 60661]]

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water (EPA 841-B-96-004) 
(1997)) and other publications that are listed at http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/bestnpsdocs.html#nps.
1. Environmental Indicators
    States need to use several sets of measures to fully determine 
their success in implementing their nonpoint source programs. These 
include measures that indicate progress towards achieving and 
maintaining beneficial uses of water; towards other long-term goals of 
the State's program (e.g., achieving load reductions, installing 
appropriate technology at all animal waste facilities that need to be 
upgraded, or implementing particular watershed projects); and towards 
shorter-term goals and objectives (e.g., successfully implementing a 
particular technology) that are designed to lead to the achievement of 
longer-term goals.
    As discussed in Section IV.E of these guidelines, States must 
include in their annual reports at least the three measures of progress 
that are required by Section 319(h)(11), including implementation 
milestones, available information on reductions in nonpoint source 
pollutant loadings, and available information on improvements in water 
quality. Approaches that can be used to meet either short-term tracking 
or longer-term project evaluation needs include ambient water quality 
monitoring (e.g., edge-of-field, small watersheds, multiple watersheds, 
in-lake, in-aquifer monitoring), beneficial use assessment (e.g., 
biological/ habitat assessment, attainment of water quality standards), 
implementation monitoring (e.g., audits, activity tracking, geographic 
information system tracking of land use and land management), model 
projections, and photographic evidence. Ambient monitoring and 
beneficial use assessment tracking should be included for projects 
wherever feasible.
    Appendix A of these guidelines contains an illustrative set of 
these and other indicators and measures, including those required to 
implement Section 319(h)(11) and TMDLs, that can help the States and 
the public gauge the progress and success of their programs. States may 
identify and use other indicators and measures that are most relevant 
to their particular nonpoint source problems, programs, and projects. 
However, States should in all cases use environmental indicators to the 
greatest extent feasible, so that the State and the public may best 
recognize the State's progress in addressing water quality problems in 
terms that are most relevant to the public's concerns.
2. Monitoring in Watershed Projects
    Appropriate monitoring of watershed project implementation is an 
essential tool to enable States to identify nonpoint source pollution 
problems, develop effective watershed-based plans, evaluate the 
effectiveness of actions taken, and meet reporting requirements under 
Section 319(h)(11). All watershed projects designed to implement a 
watershed-based plan must describe how the plan's monitoring component 
will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation 
efforts over time, measured against the specific criteria that are 
established in the watershed plan. As described in Section III.D 
(``Watershed-Based Plans''), the criteria against which progress is 
being monitored should be designed to focus on whether loading 
reductions are being achieved over time and substantial progress is 
being made towards attaining or maintaining water quality standards. 
This can be achieved through watershed-scale monitoring to measure the 
impacts of multiple programs, projects, and trends over time (i.e., 
monitoring need not be conducted for individual BMPs unless that is 
particularly relevant to the project). Information on reductions in 
nonpoint pollutant loads will then be tracked and reported in the 
Section 319 Grants Reporting and Tracking System (GRTS) as described 
below in Section IV.E.
    While States may use Section 319(h) grant funds for monitoring 
activities for particular watershed projects, States are encouraged to 
also explore other cost-effective approaches to conducting monitoring. 
For example, the U.S. Geological Survey and the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration hold an array of ambient data and can 
provide support for various monitoring activities. In addition, 
volunteer monitoring programs are used by many States to obtain water 
quality data in a cost-effective manner.
3. National Monitoring Program
    To provide a national documentation of the feasibility of 
controlling and preventing pollution resulting from nonpoint sources, 
and to improve technical understanding of nonpoint source pollution and 
the effectiveness of nonpoint source control technology and approaches, 
EPA and many States have been implementing a more rigorous and 
standardized monitoring framework that can be used for a representative 
subset of watershed projects funded under Section 319. Monitoring for 
this subset of selected watershed projects is being conducted at 
appropriate frequency intervals and for appropriately long periods of 
time that include monitoring before, during, and following 
implementation to assure the accounting of various sources of 
variation. We encourage States to conduct intensive water quality 
monitoring of one or more of their projects as part of this national 
evaluation.
    EPA has developed a framework for selecting national monitoring 
projects, issued guidelines for minimum monitoring activities, and 
developed software for managing and reporting data. To date, 23 high-
quality national projects have been selected across the country through 
a rigorous but collaborative process involving the States, EPA Regions, 
and EPA Headquarters. Additional high-quality monitoring projects will 
be selected in future years using the same collaborative process. For 
all projects, EPA provides specialized technical support in project 
development, monitoring design, data management and analysis, and 
reporting. From time to time, and in close collaboration with relevant 
States and project managers, EPA will publish progress reports and 
results. The most recent report, Section 319 National Monitoring 
Program Projects (December 2001), includes information on each of the 
23 projects and highlights the documented water quality improvements 
achieved by some of the projects to date. To view or download this 
report, or to obtain further information on the National Monitoring 
Program, see http://h2osparc.wq.ncsu.edu/319index.html. This report 
illustrates the water quality benefits of well-designed and implemented 
watershed projects.

IV. Grants

    Section 319 grants are important resources available to States to 
restore impaired waters and to protect threatened and good-quality 
waters. These guidelines provide States with a framework to use Section 
319 grant funds in a manner that will implement their nonpoint source 
management programs effectively to achieve the vision established at 
the beginning of these guidelines and to achieve the specific goals and 
objectives established in their upgraded State nonpoint source 
management programs. Moreover, EPA and States will continue to minimize 
administrative responsibilities to assure that the funds are being used 
effectively and in a legally appropriate manner.
    While Section 319 funds are important resources, it remains 
critical for States to continue to build their existing partnerships 
and to develop

[[Page 60662]]

new ones as necessary to achieve their water quality goals. While 
Section 319 funds have grown, they remain, taken alone, only a modest 
response to the broad range of national nonpoint source impairments and 
threats. Therefore, the effectiveness of State nonpoint source programs 
will depend on the effective use of their funds, authorities, and other 
resources to leverage the funds, resources, and authorities of other 
public and private sector entities that have a role to play in abating 
and preventing nonpoint source pollution problems.

A. Relationship to Performance Partnership Grants

    On January 9, 2001, EPA published rules to revise and update its 
grant regulations that apply to Section 319 and other EPA grants 
programs. (See 66 FR 1725-1747 (January 9, 2001), 40 CFR part 35, 
available at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/.) The regulation 
advances ongoing efforts to build more effective State-EPA partnerships 
and to improve environmental conditions by providing States with 
increasing flexibility to direct resources where they are needed most 
to address environmental and health needs.
    EPA believes that the States' efforts to upgrade State nonpoint 
source programs during the past five years have much in common with 
goals and principles of the Performance Partnership Grants (PPG) 
program and the broader National Environmental Performance Partnership 
System (NEPPS) of which the PPG program is a part. These included 
promoting a focus upon improved environmental results by directing 
scarce public resources toward the States' highest priority, highest 
value activities; providing States with greater flexibility to achieve 
those results; improving public understanding of environmental 
conditions and choices; and enhancing accountability to the public and 
taxpayers.
    These new guidelines have similarly been drafted to be consistent 
with the overall framework of the NEPPS and PPG. They focus on broad 
environmental goals (e.g., achieving water quality standards in 
impaired waters through the implementation of TMDLs) while providing 
flexibility to States in prioritizing their efforts among their many 
impaired waters and in developing and implementing appropriate 
practices and systems to solve their water quality problems. They also 
focus on reporting environmental outcomes (e.g., ``reductions in 
nonpoint source pollutant loading and improvements in water quality'' 
as called for in Section 319(h)). The nonpoint source program is an 
eligible grant program in a PPG. For those States that wish to include 
the nonpoint source program in their request for a PPG and/or NEPPS 
Agreement, these guidelines should be used as the foundation for 
substantive discussions on establishing nonpoint source environmental 
goals and program performance expectations.

B. Funding Process

1. Allocation of Funds
    EPA uses the allocation formula presented in Appendix D to 
determine the amount of funding to be awarded to each State. The 
factors used in the allocation formula, as well as the weights used in 
the formula, have remained the same as they have been since the Section 
319 grants program began. Each year, the Congressional appropriation 
for Section 319 will be multiplied by the applicable percentage 
presented in Appendix E to determine each State's allocation for that 
year. As soon as the annual Section 319 appropriation is made by 
Congress, EPA Headquarters will immediately notify the EPA Regional 
offices of each State's allocation, and the Regions will immediately 
notify the States.
    EPA will continue to award funds to States in two portions. EPA 
will first subtract $100 million from the total Section 319 
appropriation. That portion is referred to as the ``incremental funds'' 
while the remaining portion is referred to as the ``base'' funds. Both 
of these portions are allocated to the States in accordance with the 
allocation formula discussed in the preceding paragraph. As discussed 
in Section III.B above, the base funds are to be used by the States to 
generally implement all aspects of their nonpoint source programs, 
while the incremental funds are to be primarily focused upon the 
implementation of watershed-based plans to restore waters impaired by 
nonpoint source pollution.
2. Schedule for Awarding Section 319 Grants

a. Background

    These guidelines present a six-step process for awarding Section 
319 grants. EPA recognizes that there is a wide disparity among States 
as to their desired schedules (e.g., due to differing fiscal years, 
timeliness of weather-related projects, etc.), and is presenting this 
process to help provide States and EPA with a general outline of the 
steps to be followed without dictating a uniform schedule for State 
submissions.
    States are strongly encouraged to begin their internal project 
development processes (such as identification of priority areas for 
funding and solicitation of project proposals) as early as possible to 
assure more time for the State and other project proponents to develop 
excellent projects in advance of the formal grant application process. 
States should reference their approved nonpoint source management 
programs (e.g., in a Request for Proposal) so that project sponsors are 
focusing on activities consistent with the State's program. States and 
Regions are also encouraged, where feasible, to informally discuss 
proposed projects prior to formal submission of the draft application 
to EPA so that the subsequent submission can be reviewed and approved 
quickly and smoothly. In particular, EPA encourages States to submit 
early drafts of project proposals to EPA if they believe that there are 
difficult issues that may arise (e.g., whether the proposed project is 
legally fundable or meets criteria established in applicable 
guidelines) or if they desire technical assistance from EPA.

b. Six-Step Process to Awarding Section 319 Grants

    [sbull] Step 1: EPA Headquarters issues brief annual guidance.
    EPA Headquarters will strive to issue brief annual guidance, if any 
is needed, in the early Spring preceding the Fiscal Year for which the 
Section 319 funding will be applicable.
    [sbull] Step 2: States submit draft grant applications, including a 
draft work plan.
    States should expeditiously implement their processes to develop or 
solicit draft grant applications (e.g., the Request for Proposals 
process used by many States to solicit grant projects from agencies, 
watershed groups, and other organizations within the State). They 
should also develop expeditious processes (e.g., using State Nonpoint 
Source Task Forces such as have been established in many States) to 
review project proposals and select the best ones for inclusion in 
their draft work plan, so that they can submit good-quality draft 
applications in a timely manner.
    EPA strongly recommends that the State provide clear written or 
oral guidance to all project applicants to assure that the applicants 
are aware of Federal requirements for project eligibility and State 
criteria for project selection.
    Each State will submit a draft grant application, including a draft 
work plan. EPA encourages States choosing to submit any voluminous 
materials do so

[[Page 60663]]

electronically to minimize resources and expenses. Each Region will 
work closely and collaboratively with each State at this stage to 
promote the development and submission of high-quality work plans. 
Regions must be able to determine from the draft work plans that: (1) 
They conform to all applicable legal requirements of Section 319, EPA's 
general grant regulations in 40 CFR parts 31 and 35, and the 
requirements of OMB Circulars A-21, A-87, A-102, A-110, A-122, A-133; 
(2) they are consistent with these guidelines and with the goals, 
objectives and priorities in the State nonpoint source management 
program; (3) they only include expenditures that are necessary, 
eligible, reasonable, and consistent with the grant; (4) the State and 
EPA will mutually be able to assess the success of grant activities in 
meeting State program goals; (5) nation-wide progress in reducing 
nonpoint source pollutant loads and in achieving and maintaining water 
quality standards can be tracked, as discussed in Section IV.E below.
Work Plans To Develop Watershed-Based Plans
    The work plan to develop a watershed-based plan must include, at a 
minimum: (1) An identification of the geographical extent of the 
watershed to be covered by the plan; (2) a schedule for developing the 
watershed plan; and (3) an estimate of the Section 319 funds that will 
be used for developing the watershed plan. All watershed-based plans 
that are developed with Section 319 funds must ultimately include all 
of the information identified in Section III.D above (``Watershed-Based 
Plans'').
Work Plans To Implement Watershed-Based Plans
    States are not required to submit their detailed watershed-based 
plans for EPA approval. However, they must submit a brief work plan 
that: (1) Identifies the watershed-based plan that will be implemented; 
(2) provides a schedule for implementing the watershed-based plan; (3) 
includes a brief summary of the plan; and (4) provides an estimate of 
the Section 319 funds that will be used to implement the watershed 
plan. If a State requests funding to implement a watershed-based plan 
at the same time that it submits a request for funding to develop the 
plan, the State must make its best effort to provide the information 
regarding the implementation phase of the project. If the State 
believes that it does not yet have enough information to do so, the 
Region and State should discuss whether the State has enough 
information at this time to provide a reasonable basis for the State to 
make a request for implementation funding prior to completing the 
development of the watershed-based plan. When appropriate, the request 
for implementation funding may be regarded as premature and deferred to 
the following year.
    In lieu of requiring States to submit their watershed-based plans 
to EPA for approval, EPA has chosen to defer to States' expertise and 
judgment in developing and implementing these plans. However, EPA 
recognizes that watershed-based plans are such critical components that 
the success of a State NPS management program rests significantly on 
States' success in developing good-quality plans and implementing them 
effectively. Therefore, EPA expects that Regional management and 
oversight of Section 319(h) grants (see Section V of these guidelines) 
will place a special emphasis on reviewing these activities from time 
to time and that Regions will therefore periodically review and discuss 
State progress in developing plans in conformity with these guidelines 
and implementing them effectively. Regions must include a condition in 
the grant that contains the language set forth in Appendix F to these 
guidelines. That language provides that, upon Regional request, the 
State will provide copies of any (i.e., one or more, depending on the 
Region's request) 319-funded watershed-based plans and other 
information relevant to implementing those plans. This information 
would provide a basis for periodic Regional reviews of, and discussions 
with the State regarding, the State's implementation of its Section 319 
program, its Section 319 grants and, more specifically, its development 
and implementation of watershed-based plans that are in conformity with 
these guidelines.
Work Plans for All Other Section 319 Projects and Activities
    Work plans for all other projects and activities should include a 
brief and concise synopsis explaining the State's strategy for using 
Section 319 funds in the current fiscal year. This synopsis should 
outline the problem to be addressed; the project's goals and 
objectives; the lead implementing agency and other agencies that will 
be authorized to expend project funds; the types of measures or 
practices that will be implemented; the projected implementation 
schedule; the outputs to be produced by performance of the project; and 
the environmental indicators and/or other performance measures that 
will be used to evaluate the success of the project.
    Outputs for activities should always be quantified whenever it is 
practicable to do so (e.g., all on-the-ground implementation projects 
should have quantified outputs). States that include all or a portion 
of their Section 319 grants in a Performance Partnership Grant should 
note that their work plan similarly is required by regulation to 
describe each significant category of nonpoint source activity to be 
addressed and the work plan commitments to be produced for each 
category. (See 40 CFR 35.268(d)(4)).
Multi-Year Work Plans
    EPA encourages States to develop multi-year work plans for Section 
319 grants. For example, the State may wish to present a three-year 
work plan which would guide the State's grant activities for the next 
three years. This work plan, when approved by EPA, would not have to be 
resubmitted and re-approved except to the extent that the State wishes 
to change it to address new circumstances. In addition to the 
information required above (as applicable), the work plan should 
include the interim milestones and final dates for completion of 
activities. The interim milestones should be sufficiently frequent to 
assure timely performance throughout the project period, so that the 
State can identify problems and correct them expeditiously.
    EPA would like to clarify that the use of a multi-year work plan 
does not require the award of all project funds in a single year. It 
may rather be used to establish the State's and EPA's mutual intent to 
award funds over a several-year period to implement subsequent phases 
of the work plan. This may be particularly appropriate in the case of a 
watershed-based plan that will require multiple years to implement.
    The multi-year planning approach will reduce paper work and will 
improve the State's ability to engage in long-term planning and 
implementation with respect to both programmatic activities and 
specific watershed projects. States will, however, retain the option of 
developing and modifying aspects of their programs or projects on an 
annual basis where they deem appropriate.
    [sbull] Step 3: Regions conduct reviews of State draft applications 
and provide written comments to the State.
    The Region will review each State's draft application and meet or 
conduct a telephone conversation with each State to resolve any 
technical or administrative issues. Following this

[[Page 60664]]

collaboration, the Region should provide a written reply to the State. 
Regions will strive to conduct such reviews and provide feedback to 
States within 60 days of receipt of the State application.
    The Regional response should include written comments on the 
State's draft application, paying particular attention to its 
consistency with applicable legal requirements; applicable guidelines 
and guidance; and the goals, objectives, and priorities established in 
the State management program. The Region will work with the State to 
jointly ensure that: The work plan is designed to help achieve the 
goals and objectives contained in EPA's guidelines and in the State's 
nonpoint source management program; the work plan has programmatic, 
technical, and/or scientific merit; the costs are reasonable and 
necessary; the work plan is well-coordinated with other State and 
Federal programs; gaps between program objectives and planned 
activities are identified and resolved; and the work plan clearly 
identifies the specific outcomes, outputs, and other results that are 
linked to funding and includes target dates and milestones for 
achieving them.
    In addition to commenting on the consistency of the State program 
with applicable requirements, guidelines, guidance, and State program 
goals, objectives, and priorities, Regions may also provide technical 
comments to the State on ways in which particular proposed projects or 
programs could be clarified, improved, or otherwise modified to result 
in a better project or program. These comments should be offered as 
technical suggestions and should not be regarded by the Region or State 
as a prerequisite to grant award unless they raise significant concerns 
that a proposed project may fail for technical reasons.
    [sbull] Step 4: States submit final work plans and grant 
applications to EPA Regions.
    States are encouraged to submit final work plans and grant 
applications to EPA Regions as quickly as possible. States should 
contact EPA to discuss any questions and the intended responses to EPA 
comments and concerns, and the final work plan must provide a response 
to all comments. Good communication between the States and EPA will 
help assure work plan approval will occur as quickly as possible and 
reduce the need for additional rounds of comment from EPA.
    [sbull] Step 5: Regions award grants to State.
    Each Region will review its States' final work plans. If the 
State's work programs meet all applicable legal requirements, 
guidelines and guidance, and the goals, objectives, and priorities 
established in the State management program, the Region will award the 
final grant as quickly as possible. Regions will strive to conduct 
final reviews and award the grant to the State within 60 days of 
receipt of the final work plans. Where issues remain, the Region will 
elevate discussions to more senior management levels quickly to achieve 
a satisfactory resolution of the problem. In the event that funds 
cannot be fully awarded to a particular State within a reasonable time, 
the Region may reallocate the funds to another State. However, the 
Region and State should make all reasonable efforts to avoid such an 
unsatisfactory result.
    The grant award is contingent upon the Region determining in 
writing that the State has made ``satisfactory progress'' in the 
preceding fiscal year in meeting the schedule specified in the State's 
Section 319 nonpoint source management program (as discussed further 
below in Section IV.D).
    [sbull] Step 6: States obligate funds as expeditiously as possible.
    States will obligate the awarded funds as quickly as possible and 
conduct funded activities according to the schedules contained in the 
approved work plan. EPA has interpreted Section 319(h)(6) to provide 
that Section 319(h) funds granted to a State shall remain available for 
obligation by the State for one year from the grant award. For example, 
grant funds awarded to a State on December 1, 2003, remain available 
for obligation until December 1, 2004. The amount of any such funds 
that cannot be obligated by one year from the grant award shall, under 
Section 319(h)(6), be available to EPA for granting to other States. 
Regions should include in each grant a condition requiring the grant 
recipient to award all proposed contracts and interagency agreements 
within one year after the grant award.
    EPA recognizes that each State has a different process, often 
governed or influenced by State laws, regulations, or control 
mechanisms, that result in varying time periods for the award of State 
sub-grants or sub-contracts to implement the projects. States should 
make every effort, including modifying State procedures if appropriate, 
to assure that the funds are made available to project implementers as 
soon as possible after the grant is awarded to the State. Projects 
often depend upon the active cooperation of private individuals, many 
of whom are not professional nonpoint source personnel; it is important 
to be responsive to their needs to assure that credibility of the 
State's program is maintained and that participation in the program 
continues to grow.
    The term ``obligate'' does not mean to ``expend.'' As defined in 40 
CFR Section 31.3, ``obligations'' means ``the amounts of orders placed, 
contracts and subgrants awarded, goods and services received, and 
similar transactions during a given period of time that will require 
payment by the grantee during the same or a future period.''
    EPA believes that it is important that funds appropriated by 
Congress do not languish unused for significant amounts of time. 
Generally speaking, it is in the public interest for States to expend 
appropriated and awarded funds as rapidly as practicable upon receipt 
by the State. Where States are implementing multi-year watershed 
projects, the preferred approach may be to award the funds gradually 
over a period of years rather than to award all of the funds at one 
time. Regions and States are encouraged to work together to assure that 
funds awarded are sufficient to support any implementation activities 
in the watershed that may occur within a reasonable time, while 
agreeing that additional funds would be made available in future 
funding years to enable the project to be fully implemented over a 
period of years. EPA intends to engage in dialogue with the States 
during the coming year to assure that we meet the dual goals of putting 
the public's funds to work expeditiously while at the same time 
providing assurance to the States that they will receive enough funds 
to carry implementation efforts to successful completion.

C. Grant Eligibility

    Section 319 grant funds are to be directed towards the States' and 
EPA's common vision that all States implement dynamic and effective 
programs designed to achieve and maintain beneficial uses of water. 
Approved State nonpoint source management programs provide the 
framework for determining what activities are eligible for funding 
under Section 319(h). While these guidelines emphasize the use of 
Section 319 funds for the development and implementation of watershed-
based plans to restore priority waters, States may also use Section 319 
base funds for other activities that will generally support these 
goals, as well as water quality protection goals, including 
nonregulatory or regulatory programs

[[Page 60665]]

for enforcement; technical assistance, including staffing; financial 
assistance; education; training; technology transfer; demonstration 
projects; and monitoring to assess the success of specific nonpoint 
source implementation projects.
1. Ground-Water Activities and Source Water Protection Programs
    As in the past, EPA's policy will be to award all Section 319 
grants under Section 319(h), in lieu of awarding separate grants under 
Section 319(i). Thus, these guidelines apply to all Section 319 grants. 
This approach will encourage integration of ground-water activities 
with overall State nonpoint source control programs, while maximizing 
State flexibility to consider and prioritize all causes and effects of 
nonpoint sources of water pollution.
    Ground-water activities are eligible for Section 319(h) grants to 
the extent that they are identified directly in the State's nonpoint 
source management program or through incorporation in the management 
program by reference to the State's Ground-Water Protection Strategy, 
Comprehensive State Ground-Water Protection Program, or Source Water 
Protection Program. If such activities are not currently included in 
the State's nonpoint source management program, the program should be 
amended to include them.
    EPA encourages States to coordinate their nonpoint source 
management programs with their source water protection programs. This 
will assure that programs, authorities, and funding sources to protect 
sources of drinking water from nonpoint source pollution are 
appropriately coordinated to maximize the effectiveness and efficiency 
of both programs' efforts.
2. Urban Storm Water Runoff
    Section 319 funds may be used to fund any urban storm water 
activities that are not specifically required by a draft or final NPDES 
permit. EPA has issued several ``phases'' of regulations defining what 
activities are subject to the NPDES permit requirements of Section 
402(p)(2) of the Clean Water Act. Phase I, in place since 1990, 
requires operators of medium and large municipal separate storm sewer 
systems (MS4s) located in incorporated places and counties with 
populations of more than 100,000, certain industrial activities, and 
construction activities disturbing 5 acres of land or more to obtain an 
NPDES permit to discharge storm water runoff (see 55 FR 47990, November 
1990). In 1999, EPA expanded the Federal storm water program with the 
promulgation of the ``Phase II'' rule (see 64 FR 68722, December 8, 
1999). Phase II requires operators of small MS4s (non-Phase I regulated 
MS4s) in ``urbanized areas'' and small construction activities 
disturbing between 1 and 5 acres of land to obtain an NPDES permit.
    States may use section 319(h) funds for those urban storm water 
discharges that are not addressed by Phase I and Phase II stormwater 
program requirements. These include aspects of Phase I and II 
activities that support but do not directly implement activities 
required by Phase I or Phase II permits.
    EPA and the States recognize the benefits of integrating nonpoint 
source funds and storm water activities as much as is legally 
allowable. Listed below are a variety of urban runoff management 
activities that could be eligible for Section 319(h) funding:
    [sbull] Technical assistance to State and local storm water 
programs;
    [sbull] Monitoring needed to design and evaluate the effectiveness 
of implementation strategies;
    [sbull] Best management practices for pollution prevention and 
runoff control (except for BMPs required by a draft or final NPDES 
permit);
    [sbull] Information and education programs;
    [sbull] Technology transfer and training; and
    [sbull] Development and implementation of regulations, policies, 
and local ordinances to address storm water runoff. (These may apply to 
areas covered by NPDES permits, provided that the regulations, policies 
and ordinances apply to non-permitted areas as well.)
    Historically, urban storm water management control efforts have 
focused on water drainage problems (i.e., water quantity). Now many 
storm water control BMPs are designed to control both water quantity 
and water quality. Section 319(h) funds may be used to assist in the 
incremental funding of certain water quality components of such 
practices, except as described below.
    Section 319(h) nonpoint source control funds may not be used to 
implement specific requirements of draft or final NPDES storm water 
permits, nor to implement permit application requirements of EPA's 
storm water regulations. For example, Section 319(h) funds may not be 
used to meet permit application requirements such as mapping storm 
water systems, identifying illicit connections, characterizing storm 
water discharges, or monitoring required by permits. Section 319(h) 
grant funds may not be used to pay for BMPs or ``end of pipe'' 
treatments which are required as part of a draft or final NPDES permit.
    These prohibitions are based on the statutory limitations on the 
use of Section 319 funds, including Congressional intent that these 
funds be used to address nonpoint sources, rather than permitted point 
sources. Congress determined that permitted point sources would 
generally comply with NPDES permit requirements without obtaining 
Federal grants. (However, EPA notes that ``publicly owned treatment 
works,'' which includes publicly owned methods or systems for 
preventing, abating, reducing, storing, treating, separating or 
disposing of ``storm water runoff'' are eligible to receive Federal 
loans under the State Revolving Loan Fund program.)
3. Abandoned Mine Lands
    Abandoned mine land reclamation projects that are designed to 
restore water quality are eligible for Section 319 funding except where 
funds are used to implement specific requirements in a draft or final 
NPDES permit. For example, Section 319 funds cannot be used to build 
treatment systems required by an NPDES permit for an inactive mine, but 
they may be used to fund a variety of other remediation activities at 
the same mine. Examples of activities that could be eligible for 
funding include:
    [sbull] Remediation of water pollution from abandoned mines that 
have not yet been issued a draft or final permit;
    [sbull] Remediation of water pollution from portions of abandoned 
mine sites that are not covered by a draft or final permit;
    [sbull] Mapping and planning remediation at abandoned mine land 
sites;
    [sbull] Monitoring needed to design and evaluate the effectiveness 
of implementation strategies;
    [sbull] Technical assistance to State and local abandoned mine land 
programs;
    [sbull] Information and education programs;
    [sbull] Technology transfer and training; and
    [sbull] Development and implementation of policies to address 
abandoned mine lands.
    The Natural Resources Conservation Service and local soil 
conservation districts have a vast array of on-the-ground experience in 
the area of rural abandoned mine lands. In addition, the Office of 
Surface Mining has a 10% set-aside from its Abandoned Mine Land program 
to address water quality problems from abandoned mines.

[[Page 60666]]

4. Animal Feeding Operations
    Section 319 funds may be used to support the implementation of a 
wide range of animal waste storage, treatment, and disposal options for 
animal feeding operations (AFO) that are not subject to NPDES permits 
requirements. The NPDES regulations, published on December 15, 2002, 
may be reviewed at http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/afo/cafofinalrule.cfm. 
Any AFO that is defined or designated to be a ``concentrated'' AFO 
(i.e., a ``CAFO'') under 40 CFR section 122.23 is ineligible for 
funding under Section 319. However, the off-site management of wastes 
that have been generated by a CAFO and then transported to an off-site 
facility that is not subject to NPDES permit requirements is eligible 
for funding if it is managed consistently with the State's nonpoint 
source management program.
    In March 1999, EPA and USDA published the Unified Animal Feeding 
Operation Strategy (AFO Strategy). (This Strategy is available at 
http://www.epa.gov/owm.) This Strategy discusses the relationship 
between AFOs and environmental and public health; sets forth a national 
performance expectation for all AFO owners and operators; and presents 
a series of actions to minimize public health impacts and improve water 
quality while complementing the long-term sustainability of livestock 
production.
    The AFO Strategy includes a goal that all AFOs will have 
comprehensive nutrient management plans (``CNMP's''). USDA and EPA 
funding assistance programs such as the Environmental Quality 
Incentives Program and the Section 319 grants program are critical 
tools to help assure the development and implementation of several 
hundred thousand CNMP's for non-permitted AFOs in the United States. To 
this end, Regions must assure that all Section 319 grants that include 
programs or projects that assist AFOs include a provision (either as a 
grant condition or through a separate document such as a workplan or 
BMP implementation plan) to assure that any AFO that receives financial 
assistance pursuant to the grant has and will implement a CNMP. (Any 
aspect of a CNMP that is not directly related to water quality 
concerns--e.g., is related to dust or odor suppresion--is not fundable 
under Section 319 and is therefore excluded from this requirement.)
    USDA has developed a variety of practice standards, guidance 
documents, and other technical assistance tools to assist in the 
development and implementation of CNMP's. We recommend that any CNMP 
for Section 319-funded AFO projects be developed, reviewed, or approved 
by a person who has been certified through a certification program 
accepted by USDA or by another equivalent certification program. An 
``equivalent certification program'' may include State programs for 
certifying private and public sector nutrient management planners.
5. Lake Protection and Restoration Activities
    Lake protection and restoration activities are eligible for funding 
under Section 319(h) to the same extent, and subject to the same 
criteria, as activities to protect and restore other types of 
waterbodies from nonpoint source pollution. Where a lake is listed as 
impaired on the Section 303(d) list, Section 319 funding can be used to 
develop and implement watershed-based plans that contain the 
information in Section III.D.
    States are encouraged to use Section 319 funding for eligible 
activities that might have been funded in previous years under Section 
314 of the Clean Water Act. Section 319 funds should not be used for 
in-lake work such as aquatic macrophyte harvesting or dredging, unless 
the sources of pollution have been addressed sufficiently to assure 
that the pollution being remediated will not recur. This policy is 
fully consistent with the Clean Lakes regulations at 40 CFR 35.1650-2 
(5)(i) and (ii) which provide:

    The project does not include costs for harvesting aquatic 
vegetation, or for chemical treatment to alleviate temporarily the 
symptoms of eutrophication, or for operating and maintaining lake 
aeration devices, or for providing similar palliative methods and 
procedures, unless these procedures are the most energy efficient or 
cost effective lake restorative method.

    A recommendation by the Senate Appropriations Committee (see Senate 
Report 106-161) suggests that each State use at least 5 percent of its 
Section 319 funds for Clean Lakes activities to address the restoration 
and protection needs of priority lakes, ponds and reservoirs. We 
suggest that States give priority to funding:
a. Lake Water Quality Assessment (LWQA) Projects
    LWQA projects are projects which are intended to compile a 
comprehensive statewide assessment of lake water quality, to enhance 
overall State lake management programs, and to increase public 
awareness and commitment to protecting lakes. Specific activities might 
include: developing a statewide lake monitoring program; developing an 
integrated Section 305(b) water quality report and Section 303(d) list 
of impaired waters; building and enhancing the State's lake-related 
public outreach and volunteer monitoring activities; and developing and 
enhancing state lakes programs including travel/training for program 
managers to attend the annual meeting on ``Enhancing State Lake 
Management Programs.''
b. Phase 1 Diagnostic/Feasibility Studies
    Phase 1 Diagnostic/Feasibility Studies are studies which are 
intended to: perform comprehensive studies of particular lakes included 
on State's priority lists including Section 303(d) lists; determine the 
causes, sources, and extent of pollution to the lake; evaluate possible 
solutions; and recommend the most feasible and cost-effective methods 
and measures for restoring and protecting lake resources.
    The specific requirements for Phase 1 studies are listed in the 
Section 314 Clean Lakes Program regulations (40 CFR part 35, subpart 
H). The Clean Lakes Program regulations are still valid and provide a 
sound basis for the design of Phase 1 studies, and thus, we suggest 
that you consult these regulations when you develop work plans for 
Phase 1 projects. In many cases, Phase 1 studies should provide the 
basis for the development of a TMDL and watershed-based plan for a 
particular lake or reservoir.
c. Phase 2 Restoration/Implementation Projects
    Phase 2 Restoration/Implementation Projects are projects which are 
intended to implement lake protection and restoration measures 
recommended in Phase 1 studies. For lakes that are listed as impaired 
on the Section 303(d) list, such restoration measures should be 
integrated into a watershed-based plan that contains the information in 
Section III.D.
d. Phase 3 Post-Restoration Monitoring Studies
    Phase 3 Post-Restoration Monitoring Studies are studies to 
determine the longevity and effectiveness of various restoration 
techniques and to advance the science of lake restoration. Funding 
priorities should support the primary purpose of these studies which is 
to assess the effectiveness of restoration techniques that have been 
applied through Phase 2 projects. Lower priority consideration should 
be given to projects that generally support activities to improve and 
advance the science of lake restoration and management but are

[[Page 60667]]

not specifically assessing Phase 2 projects.
    Section 319-funded Clean Lakes activities should be funded in the 
same manner as other parts of a State's Section 319 work program, and 
all operative Section 319 grant requirements and guidelines (including 
provisions for the use of incremental funds, and reporting on the 
amount of funding devoted to Clean Lakes activities) will apply to 
these projects as well. Please note that while a State may decide to 
fund a LWQA and several Phase 2 studies with Section 319 funds, such 
funds are included within the overall limitation allowing States to use 
no more than 20 percent of their entire Section 319 allocation to 
upgrade and refine their nonpoint source programs and assessments. 
Additionally, Clean Lakes activities should be funded only in lakes 
that are publicly owned and that have public access, consistent with 
the Clean Lakes regulations at 40 CFR 35.1605-3.
    EPA has published additional, separate guidance for lakes and 
reservoirs. (See ``Guidance on Use of Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking 
Water Act Authorities to Address Management Needs for Lakes and 
Reservoirs,'' issued July 9, 1998, signed by Robert H. Wayland III, 
Director, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds (available at: 
http://www.epa.gov/owow/lakes/policy.html). This guidance discusses 
eligibility of lake and reservoir restoration and protection activities 
under Section 319; listing of impaired and threatened lakes and 
reservoirs on Section 303(d) lists; and the use of additional funding 
authorities such as the Clean Water Act State Revolving Fund for 
implementing priority lake and reservoir management projects in 
approved State nonpoint source management programs.

D. Criteria That Apply to the Award of Section 319 Grants

    As noted previously, Section 319 grants must meet certain 
statutory, regulatory and other administrative criteria that have been 
established to assure that Section 319 funds are used in a fiscally 
prudent manner. (A reference document produced by the State-EPA 
Nonpoint Source Partnership Grants Management Workgroup in March 2003 
provides an overview of the Federal requirements for administering 
Section 319 grants. This document can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/funding.html.) All Section 319 grants must be consistent with 
applicable provisions of Section 319 of the Clean Water Act; EPA's 
general grant regulations in 40 CFR parts 31 and 35; OMB circulars; and 
applicable EPA guidelines.
    State nonpoint source program managers should note that EPA has 
most recently revised the grant regulations at 40 CFR part 35 on 
January 9, 2001. (See 66 FR 1725-1747.) These regulations contain new 
Sections 35.260--268, that address the purpose of nonpoint source 
management grants (Section 260); the maximum Federal share (Section 
265); the maintenance of effort requirement (Section 266); and some of 
the award limitations contained in Section 319 (Section 268).
    We discuss below some of the most significant criteria that apply 
to the award of Section 319 grants.
1. The Work Plan Must Demonstrate That Each Funded Element Will 
Implement Specific Activities Identified in the Approved Management 
Program
    Section 319(h) of the Clean Water Act provides that Section 319(h) 
grants are to be made ``for the purpose of assisting the State in 
implementing such management program.'' The grant work program must 
therefore be designed to ``implement'' the approved nonpoint source 
management program. Each funded program activity or project must in 
fact lead to accomplishment of management program objectives that are 
identified in the State's approved and upgraded nonpoint source 
management program. Grant work plans must link the funded activities or 
projects to the relevant element or elements of the States nonpoint 
source management program.
2. Section 319 Grants Must Be Awarded as Continuing Environmental 
Program Grants
    All Section 319(h) grants must be awarded as continuing 
environmental program grants, consistent with 40 CFR, part 35. Section 
319(h) grants have some unique administrative characteristics (i.e., 
multi-year vs. one-year budget and project periods), which are 
different from other EPA continuing environmental grant programs. 
Unlike most other continuing environmental grants, Section 319(h) 
grants are not required to be closed out annually. However, Regions are 
encouraged to award new continuing environmental program grants each 
year rather than to add funds to an existing State grant through 
amendments. This will allow for greater program accountability over the 
multi-year duration of these grants. The Regions must also ensure that 
all existing State grants are properly closed out at the conclusion of 
the project period.
3. The Non-Federal Share Must Be at Least 40 Percent
    Section 319(h)(3) provides: ``The Federal share of the cost of each 
management program implemented with Federal assistance * * * in any 
fiscal year shall not exceed 60 percent of the cost incurred by the 
State in implementing such management program and shall be made on the 
condition that the non-Federal share is provided from non-Federal 
sources.'' The match need not be on an item-by-item basis; rather, a 
single figure that covers the entire non-Federal share of the costs of 
implementing a State's Section 319 program. The non-Federal match does 
not need to be contributed at the time of the grant award, but the 
funds must be contributed in a timely manner as needed to meet the 
schedules established in the work plan milestones. EPA Regions must 
verify that grantees have satisfied the match requirements upon review 
and submittal of the grantee's final financial status report.
    Nonpoint source program managers should be aware that recycled 
State Revolving Funds under Title VI of the CWA can be used to provide 
a match for Section 319 grants. These are funds that have been loaned 
by the State and subsequently repaid by the borrower to the State. The 
repaid funds are then recycled by the State Revolving Fund program to 
provide loans that fund other water quality projects. These recycled 
funds are regarded as State monies and therefore are eligible to be 
used as match for Section 319 funds, provided that they, like any other 
Section 319 match funds, are used to implement the State's approved 
Section 319 management program.
4. Section 319 May Provide Cost Sharing to Individuals Only in the Case 
of Demonstration Projects
    Section 319(h)(7) provides that States may use Section 319(h) funds 
to provide financial assistance to ``persons'' only if the costs are 
related to implementing ``demonstration projects.'' EPA does not 
interpret this provision to mean that a BMP or management measure may 
be funded in only one location. A successful or potentially successful 
approach may need to be assessed and demonstrated in many locations to 
indicate its widespread utility in a variety of hydro-geological and 
sociological settings. Moreover, projects should be implemented in a 
variety of locations within each State so that they may in fact provide 
education, information, and outreach to others who may wish to avail 
themselves of the same approaches used in the projects.

[[Page 60668]]

    In particular, EPA does not believe that Congress intended to 
preclude the funding of demonstration watershed projects that may 
require the State to share the cost of a particular practice or set of 
practices at a number of sites within the watershed in order to 
demonstrate the overall effectiveness of the adopted approach in 
solving the water quality problem. EPA's and the States' experiences 
during the past decade have demonstrated that watershed problems cannot 
generally be solved without implementing a comprehensive plan with 
appropriate measures and practices at appropriate sites throughout the 
watershed.
    Although there have now been an increasing number of nonpoint 
source success stories that have improved water quality on a very small 
geographic scale, our nation has generally not yet achieved success in 
abating or preventing nonpoint source pollution at a scale that 
achieves the restoration or protection of entire watersheds to meet 
water quality standards. Thus, at this early stage in our collective 
attempts to protect and restore watersheds by abating nonpoint source 
pollution, each State needs to implement watershed-scale projects that 
demonstrate how to successfully implement nonpoint source watershed-
based plans to restore and protect watersheds. For this reason, as 
discussed earlier in Section III.B of this guidance, EPA is focusing 
incremental Section 319 funds upon the development and implementation 
of watershed-based plans to implement NPS TMDLs that will restore water 
quality.
    To ensure widespread implementation of BMPs in demonstration 
projects in high-priority watersheds, we encourage States to supplement 
Section 319 cost-share to individuals with additional cost-share from 
State funds, as well as to work with other funding authorities and 
persons that can contribute resources. Where such an approach is 
followed, the total cost-share to an individual from Section 319, State 
and other Federal (e.g. USDA) funds may not exceed 100% of the total 
cost of the practice.
5. The State Must Demonstrate Satisfactory Progress
    Section 319(h)(8) of the Clean Water Act provides that no Section 
319 grant may be made to a State in any fiscal year unless the 
Administrator ``determines that such State made satisfactory progress 
in such preceding fiscal year in meeting the schedule specified by such 
State under subsection (b)(2).'' Section 319(b)(2) in turn provides 
that States' approved Section 319 management programs shall include:

    A schedule containing annual milestones for (i) utilization of 
the program implementation methods identified in subparagraph (B), 
and (ii) implementation of the best management practices identified 
in subparagraph (A) by the categories, subcategories, or particular 
nonpoint sources designated under paragraph (1)(B). Such schedule 
shall provide for utilization of the best management practices at 
the earliest practicable date.

    The Region must determine, based on an examination of State 
activities, reports, reviews, and other documents and discussions with 
the State in the previous year, whether the State's progress for the 
previous fiscal year in meeting the schedule set forth in its nonpoint 
source management program was satisfactory. A very high level of 
significance should be assigned to the State's development and 
implementation of watershed-based plans in accordance with these 
guidelines and in accordance with any schedules that have been 
established. In addition, for States with approved CZARA programs, 
successful implementation of CZARA management measures can assist 
Regions in determining satisfactory progress.
    Regions must include in each Section 319 grant (or in a separate 
document, such as the grant-issuance cover letter, that is signed by 
the same EPA official who signs the grant), a written determination 
that the State has made satisfactory progress during the previous 
fiscal year in meeting the schedule of milestones specified by the 
State in its nonpoint source management program. The Regions must 
include brief explanations that support their determinations.
    We discuss States' grants reporting requirements in Section IV.E 
below. These reports can, if appropriately done, provide much of the 
written information needed by the Regions to determine whether the 
States have made satisfactory progress.
6. States Must Maintain Their Level of Effort
    Section 319(h)(9) of the Clean Water Act requires any State 
applying for Section 319 grants to establish and maintain its aggregate 
annual level of State nonpoint source pollution control expenditures 
for improving water quality at the average level of such expenditures 
in FY 1985 and 1986. This is referred to as the State's ``Maintenance 
of Effort'' (MOE) requirement. States should establish their FY 1985 
and 1986 levels and annual levels based on expenditures by the lead 
State agency or agencies responsible for the State's nonpoint source 
pollution control activities. Federal funds may not be included in 
calculating the MOE base level.
    [sbull] Calculation of expenditures is based on activities of the 
State lead nonpoint source agency or agencies responsible for the 
State's nonpoint source pollution control activities, not on what might 
be termed related activities of other State agencies with primary 
missions other than nonpoint source control. For example, if the State 
water quality agency and agricultural agency both have specific 
nonpoint source water quality control programs, these should be counted 
in the MOE. State soil conservation programs having water quality 
improvement or maintenance as a primary objective also should be 
included in a State's MOE.
    [sbull] The MOE base level or annual level cannot include the MOE 
or matching expenditures for other Federal programs, such as Sections 
106, 319, 205(j)(5), 314, and 117.
    [sbull] Determination of whether the State expenditures meet the 
MOE level for purposes of awarding a Section 319(h) grant will be based 
on the grantee expenditures projected in the grant application. (The 
State will report whether it has met its MOE requirements in its final 
Financial Status Report at the end of the budget year.)

(For additional guidance regarding MOEs, see memorandum Nonpoint Source 
FY-88-39, issued by EPA's Office of Water on July 12, 1988).
7. Administrative Costs Funded by Section 319 Funds May Not Exceed 10% 
of the Grant Award
    Pursuant to Section 319(h)(12), administrative costs in the form of 
salaries, overhead, or indirect costs for services provided and charged 
against activities and programs carried out with the grant shall not 
exceed 10 percent of the grant award. The costs of implementing 
enforcement and regulatory activities, education, training, technical 
assistance, demonstration projects, and technology transfer are not 
subject to this limitation.
8. Section 319 Grants Must Contain a Condition Requiring Operation and 
Maintenance
    Each Section 319 grant must contain a condition requiring that the 
State assure that any management practices implemented for the project 
be properly operated and maintained for the intended purposes during 
its life span. Operation includes the administration, management, and 
performance of non-

[[Page 60669]]

maintenance actions needed to keep the completed practice safe and 
functioning as intended. Maintenance includes work to prevent 
deterioration of the practice, repairing damage, or replacement of the 
practice to its original condition if one or more components fail.
    The condition must require the State to assure that any sub-award 
of Section 319 funds similarly include the same condition in the sub-
award. Additionally, such condition must reserve the right of EPA and 
the State, respectively, to periodically inspect a practice during the 
life span of the project to ensure that operation and maintenance are 
occurring, and shall state that, if it is determined that participants 
are not operating and maintaining practices in an appropriate manner, 
EPA or the State, respectively, will request a refund for that practice 
supported by the grant.
    The life span of a project will be determined on a case-by-case 
basis, tailored to the types of practices expected to be funded in a 
particular project, and should be specified in the grant condition. For 
assistance in determining the appropriate life span of the project, 
States may wish to consult with colleagues implementing similar 
programs, such as USDA's conservation programs. For example, for 
conservation practices, it may be appropriate to construct the life 
span consistent with the life span for similar conservation practices 
as determined by the Commodity Credit Corporation (pursuant to the 
implementation of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program). 
Following the approach used in many State and Federal funding programs, 
practices will generally be operated and maintained for a period of at 
least five to ten years.
    A sub-awardee and the State may agree to transfer a grant to 
another party. The transferee must be determined by the State to be 
eligible to participate in the administration of the Section 319 grant 
and must assume full responsibility under the grant, including 
operation and maintenance of those practices already installed and to 
be installed as a condition of the grant. The State should require a 
participant to refund all or a portion of the grant if the participant 
sells or loses control of the land under the grant and the new owner or 
controller is not eligible to participate in the program or refuses to 
assume responsibility under the contract.

E. Reporting Requirements To Be Included in All Grants

    All Section 319(h) grants are subject to EPA's general grant 
regulations in 40 CFR parts 31 and 35, which specify a variety of basic 
grant reporting requirements for awarding grants to States and 
localities. The grant regulations outline a range of administrative 
reporting requirements, including performance and financial reports.
    In addition to the broad rules specified in 40 CFR parts 31 and 35, 
section 319 contains two significant provisions that are specifically 
focused upon reporting for the Section 319 program:
    1. Section 319(h)(10) authorizes EPA to request information, data 
and reports as necessary to determine a State's continuing eligibility 
to receive Section 319 grants.
    2. Section 319(h)(11) requires States to report annually on their 
progress in meeting the schedule of milestones contained in their 
nonpoint source management programs, and to report available 
information on reductions of nonpoint source pollutant loadings and on 
improvements to water quality resulting from implementation of nonpoint 
source management programs.
    Regions and States should work together to assure that appropriate 
reporting requirements are incorporated into each grant, either through 
specific grant conditions, or within the work program document (see 
Appendix B for generic grant condition language). The specific 
reporting requirements reflected in that language are discussed 
immediately below. The Regions and States are encouraged to assess the 
effectiveness of the reporting process and determine annually if 
adjustments or modifications are necessary and mutually beneficial.
    In general, reporting should be sufficiently detailed to enable a 
reviewer to ascertain whether outputs and milestones are being achieved 
on schedule, to identify any problems that may be developing in 
carrying out tasks in the grant work plan, to identify corrective 
actions to address such problems expeditiously, and to adequately 
account for all Federal funds expended.
1. Basic Reporting Requirements
    Recipients of funds awarded under Section 319(h) are required by 
applicable laws and regulations to provide information to EPA under the 
following reporting categories, each of which is further described 
below: (a) Grantee performance reports; (b) nonpoint source annual 
reports; and (c) financial status reports.
    a. Grantee Performance Reports. 40 CFR section 31.40(b)(1) requires 
States to submit performance reports on the status of Section 319(h) 
grants. At a minimum, States should submit these reports on an annual 
basis by a date agreed to by the Region and the State. Final reports 
are due 90 days after the expiration or termination of grant support, 
pursuant to 40 CFR part 31.
    Performance reports should include at a minimum:
    [sbull] Performance/Milestone Summary: A listing of major program 
and project accomplishments for the period (based on the project and 
program milestones or commitments contained within approved work plans, 
grant agreements, or special conditions/agreements), as well as 
progress made toward meeting future milestones. (The State may 
accomplish some or all of this reporting requirement through its annual 
report, as discussed below.)
    [sbull] Slippage Reports: Provide reasons for delays in meeting 
scheduled milestones/commitments and discuss what actions (State, 
Federal or other) will be taken to resolve any current or anticipated 
problems.
    [sbull] Additional pertinent information including, when 
appropriate, analysis and explanation of cost overruns, unanticipated 
events/consequences, etc.
    b. Annual Reports. Section 319(h)(11) requires States to report 
annually on progress in meeting the schedule of milestones contained in 
their nonpoint source management programs, and, to the extent that 
appropriate information is available, report reductions in nonpoint 
source pollutant loadings and improvements in water quality resulting 
from program implementation. This information may be provided in a 
streamlined format suggested immediately below. As noted in Section 
IV.E.2 below, some States may wish to use the Grants Reporting and 
Tracking System to meet appropriate portions of their annual reporting 
requirements.
    1. A brief summary of progress in meeting approved milestones and 
the short- and long-term goals and objectives identified in the State 
nonpoint source management program.
    2. A matrix displaying milestones from the current year for the 
approved State program with the following information for each 
milestone:
    a. Applicable project or program
    b. Scheduled project completion date
    c. Percent completed
    3. A discussion of the extent to which Federal agencies, lands and 
activities within the State are supporting the State in meeting 
approved milestones.
    4. A summary of the available information on the extent of 
reductions in nonpoint source loadings achieved as a result of nonpoint 
source program implementation. (More detailed information would be 
provided through

[[Page 60670]]

the Grants Reporting and Tracking System, discussed below.)
    5. A summary of the available information on the amount of 
improvement in water quality (including aquatic habitat quality) as the 
result of nonpoint source program implementation. (More detailed 
information would be provided through the Grants Reporting and Tracking 
System, discussed below.)
    6. Where information is not yet available under items 4 and 5 above 
for waters or watersheds where implementation is being assisted, 
surrogate measures of environmental progress (such as environmental 
indicators) should be used and progress should be reported in terms of 
the degree or percentage of completion of the project.
    In the past, some States have chosen to include additional 
information in their annual report, using the report as a means of 
assessing progress to date and the need to modify the program; 
providing case studies of particular projects; and conveying 
information to a broader audience on the activities being conducted by 
the State. States may continue to include such additional information, 
as a supplement to the basic information required by law. States may 
wish to include the following types of information in their reports, or 
to include such information on their Web sites and refer to the 
information in their reports:
    1. Listing of further actions necessary to achieve the goals of the 
Clean Water Act, including any recommendations for future State or 
national programs to control nonpoint source pollution.
    2. Brief case studies of any particularly successful nonpoint 
source control efforts.
    3. Information on increases in public awareness of nonpoint source 
pollution and public involvement in addressing it.
    4. Copies of products produced by the State program (e.g., outreach 
materials or BMP documents).
    The Results Workgroup of the State/EPA Nonpoint Source Partnership 
has discussed ways in which annual reports can be written and presented 
in a manner that (analogous to contemporary corporate reports) promotes 
greater public knowledge and understanding of nonpoint source pollution 
and of States' efforts to prevent and reduce nonpoint source pollution. 
Several States have begun to do so, and the results are promising to 
improve communication with both the public and decision-makers about 
nonpoint source pollution. Possible outputs of that workgroup include 
guidance, suggested formats, and examples of such annual reports. 
Another option may be to do a separate shorter, reader-friendly annual 
report that is designed specifically for public education. EPA 
encourages all States to consider how their annual reports can be 
improved in terms of content, format, presentation, and style to 
enhance public support for their programs.
    c. Financial Status Reports. 40 CFR section 31.41(b) requires 
grantees to submit financial status reports using Standard Form 269 or 
269(a) to report the status of funds under each grant. At a minimum, 
States should submit financial status reports annually. Final financial 
status reports are due within 90 days after the expiration or 
termination of the grant agreement.
2. Reporting Procedures and the Grants Reporting and Tracking System
    EPA has developed a computerized system, which States and EPA 
Regions may now access directly on the World Wide Web, to manage and 
report data on Section 319 grants. This system, known as Section 319 
Grant Reporting and Tracking System (GRTS), provides States with the 
capability to fulfill grant reporting requirements and has created a 
database of nonpoint source program information which can be used to 
enhance State, Regional, and national understanding of nonpoint source 
projects and programs.
    States are required to use GRTS to report the specific nationally 
mandated data elements listed in Appendix C. This list consists of 
information needed by EPA and the States to account successfully to 
Congress, State legislatures, and the public for our accomplishments in 
implementing the national nonpoint source program. A memorandum, 
Modifications to Nonpoint Source Reporting Requirements for Section 319 
Grants (September 27, 2001), that discusses each of the mandated data 
elements in detail, as well as other improvements to GRTS, is available 
on EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/section319/grts.html.
    The most important new features of the modified GRTS are: (1) 
Precisely geo-locating Section 319 projects; (2) including a concise 
summary of each project; (3) using common geo-locational information to 
link funded projects to improvements in waters quality over time, which 
will be reported through EPA's WATERS database (which includes States' 
305(b) and 303(d) information); and (4) providing information on 
reductions in nonpoint pollutant loads. The new GRTS assists the States 
in meeting the load reduction reporting requirements of Section 
319(h)(11) by providing computer-based tools and formats that have been 
designed to simplify the effort as much as possible.
    In addition to these mandated elements, GRTS has the capacity to 
accept a great deal of additional information on State programs and 
projects. States can, if they choose, include detailed project 
descriptions or project implementation plans, and attach maps, tables, 
photographs, and spreadsheets. In fact, States can attach appropriate 
portions of their Section 319(h)(11) annual report to GRTS. Similarly, 
States can provide much or all of the information needed by EPA Regions 
to make annual ``satisfactory progress'' determinations as required by 
Section 319(h)(8). Finally, due to its Web-enabled format, States may 
allow sub-State organizations that receive Section 319 funds to 
directly enter data into the system, thereby reducing the States' own 
reporting burdens.
    Regions are encouraged to work with their States to design 
reporting procedures utilizing GRTS that will promote efficiency and 
eliminate duplication of work. In particular, States are encouraged to 
use GRTS to submit grantee performance reports pursuant to 40 CFR 
31.40(b)(1). States are also encouraged to use GRTS' project 
description, project evaluation, and other data fields for more 
complete data management and project reporting purposes. In addition, 
the Regions should explore ways to coordinate and synchronize the 
submittal of performance reports of other EPA programs managed within 
the same State office (e.g., Section 106, 104(b), 305(b) and 604(b)).
    Since GRTS is an official reporting vehicle for programs or 
projects conducted by States under Section 319(h) grants, a State's 
cost to enter data and otherwise utilize GRTS is itself eligible for 
funding under Section 319. Regions and States should work together to 
ensure that the States are provided sufficient resources in their 
Section 319 grants to meet these reporting requirements and management 
support needs. Examples of GRTS support needs include: providing 
adequate staff support; purchasing necessary equipment, materials, and 
supplies (including high-speed data switches or other links that enable 
fast and efficient transfer of data to and from GRTS); and attending 
GRTS conferences and training.
3. STORET
    In March 2003, EPA published ``Elements of a State Water Monitoring 
and Assessment Program'' (available at

[[Page 60671]]

http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/repguide.html). The document 
recommends the ten basic elements of a State water monitoring program. 
One of the ten elements is the use of an accessible electronic data 
system for water quality that meets State/Federal geo-locational 
standards with timely data entry and public access. EPA's new STORET 
(STOrage and RETrieval) system provides an accessible, nationwide 
central repository of water information of known quality.
    In the future, EPA will require that all States use STORET either 
directly or indirectly (e.g., via the Central Data Exchange (CDX) which 
will include the Monitoring Data Standard). For States that do not 
currently operate STORET, the Elements document cited above states that 
these States' monitoring strategies should provide for the use of 
STORET as soon as it is practicable. In the interim, the document 
states that States should store their assessment information in an 
accessible electronic database. Consistent with this approach, States 
that are not yet prepared to use STORET for storage of data generated 
in the development and implementation of Section 319 watershed projects 
should in the interim store their assessment in an accessible 
electronic database.
    EPA's goal is that, as soon as possible, all States will use STORET 
to store data generated in the development and implementation of 
Section 319 watershed projects. STORET broadly contains water quality 
data with actual concentrations of pollutants that are measured in the 
water or other similar parameters that may be used, such as 
macroinvertebrate counts. Because STORET is publicly accessible and 
utilized on a large scale, it is critical that monitoring data from all 
EPA-funded projects be entered into STORET so that the information can 
be available to all interested practitioners. Over the past decade EPA 
has developed a modernized STORET system that has improved the quality 
of entered data (including adding biological data) and is fully 
interactive and more user friendly. For more information on STORET, see 
http://www.epa.gov/storet.
4. Reporting and Record-Keeping for Sub-State Organizations
    Just as the grant agreement specifies outputs and milestones to be 
achieved by the States, States should assure that agreements with sub-
State organizations specify outputs, milestones, and reporting and 
record keeping requirements in memoranda of agreement, contracts or 
other appropriate documents. As indicated in the preceding section, 
States may, where appropriate, include in these agreements a provision 
requiring the sub-State organization to enter data into STORET and GRTS 
reporting worksheets for entry into GRTS.
    Where a sub-grantee provides a portion of the State's match, the 
State should ensure that adequate records are kept with respect to that 
portion. 40 CFR section 31.41(a)(2) specifies that grantees shall not 
impose more burdensome requirements on sub-grantees than they are 
subject to themselves.

V. Management and Oversight of Section 319(h) Grants

    EPA's oversight approach will emphasize cooperative partnerships 
based upon EPA's and the States' mutual goal of implementing dynamic 
and effective national nonpoint source programs designed to achieve and 
maintain beneficial uses of water. The guidelines established in a new 
joint performance evaluation process will promote continuous monitoring 
throughout the life of projects to help ensure the mutual understanding 
of expectations and outputs of particular grants (see 40 CFR 35.115 and 
EPA Order 5700.6).
    In conducting its oversight activities, EPA will rely to a 
significant extent on information and reports provided by the State as 
well as data entered by the State into STORET and GRTS. EPA will review 
this information and then contact the States if EPA needs additional 
information. In addition to reviewing the State's reports, EPA or the 
State should endeavor to meet at least annually to discuss the State's 
progress in implementing its program.
    Of primary importance is the discussion of State progress in 
developing and implementing watershed-based plans and achieving results 
from these implementation activities. To the extent relevant and 
appropriate to fully evaluating this progress, Regions should review at 
least some of the State's watershed-based plans and discuss both their 
strengths and weaknesses with the State. Regions should also review and 
discuss with the State the rate of progress in successfully 
implementing these plans.
    EPA and the State should also discuss ways in which EPA can better 
assist the State during the forthcoming year in implementing the 
State's program. Types of assistance to be considered include: support 
for State efforts to assess water quality problems; support for State 
design and implementation of watershed-based plans; technical 
assistance to help the State monitor the progress and results of 
watershed projects; and assistance in the development of outreach 
tools.
    When evaluation results show that grant and contract provisions 
have not been substantially achieved, the State and Region should work 
cooperatively to take corrective action. If performance or the results 
achieved by the State are poor, the Region may be required to determine 
that the State has not made ``satisfactory progress'' under Section 
319(h)(8) and to deny the State's grant application the following year. 
As discussed above, one particular area of importance for Regional 
determination is whether States have made satisfactory progress in 
addressing their impaired waters through the development and 
implementation of watershed-based plan. Other forms of corrective 
action are described at 40 CFR 31.43.
    When a State lead nonpoint source agency is providing EPA grant 
funds to other State or local agencies to carry out the terms of a 
nonpoint source grant, the lead agency remains responsible for all 
outputs in its Section 319(h) work program. Thus, if a local agency has 
difficulties performing particular funded activities, the Region should 
work with the State lead agency to resolve the problem.
Periodic Reviews
    Using its ``feedback loop'' established in States'' upgraded 
nonpoint source management programs, the State should periodically 
review and evaluate its nonpoint source management program (i.e., every 
five years). Using environmental and functional measures of success, 
the State will assess the goals and objectives of the nonpoint source 
management program, and revise the program as appropriate, in light of 
its review.

VI. Grants to Indian Tribes

    These guidelines are not specifically directed to Tribal nonpoint 
source management programs. Given the differing statutory provisions 
and approaches applicable to Tribal programs, EPA publishes separate 
nonpoint source guidance for Tribes. However, we present a brief 
overview below. For detailed information about Tribal nonpoint source 
programs, we recommend referring to the Tribal Nonpoint Source Planning 
Handbook (EPA-841-B-97-004, August 1997) as well as additional guidance 
documents written for Tribal nonpoint source programs that are located 
at http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/tribal.html.
    Tribes, like States, must have EPA-approved nonpoint source 
assessments and management programs (as well as approval for treatment 
in a similar

[[Page 60672]]

manner as a State) in order to be eligible for Section 319(h) grants. 
EPA is very pleased that to date, more than 80 Tribes, comprising over 
70% of all Indian country, have approved nonpoint source assessments 
and management programs. EPA encourages other Tribes that have 
significant nonpoint source pollution problems to similarly develop 
assessments and programs that focus on their highest priority nonpoint 
source problems. While Section 319 funds may not be used to develop 
nonpoint source assessments and management programs, other EPA funding 
programs are available to Tribes to develop nonpoint source assessment 
reports and management programs. Technical assistance with the 
development of assessment and management programs is available from 
EPA.
    Section 518(f) states that the Administrator may reserve for Indian 
Tribes treated similarly to States not more than one-third of one 
percent of the amount appropriated for any fiscal year under Section 
319(j) for Sections 319(h) and (i). In each of the Fiscal Years 2000-
2003, Congress has authorized EPA to exceed the 1/3% limitation and EPA 
has done so. EPA will annually inform the Tribes as to the amount of 
funding that is available for the forthcoming year. To be eligible for 
Section 319 nonpoint source grants, Tribes must meet the requirements 
in Section 518(e) of the Clean Water Act, as well as applicable 
provisions of EPA's general grant regulations in 40 CFR parts 31 and 
35.
    Indian Tribes are required to meet the 40 percent matching and 
maintenance-of-effort requirements under Section 319(h); however, if a 
Tribe can demonstrate financial cause, its match requirement may be 
reduced to 10 percent, with the Federal share of Section 319(h) funds 
increased to 90 percent. In addition, Tribes, like States, may use in-
kind contributions to meet matching requirements.

VII. Waiver Process

    Circumstances may arise in which a State believes it is required to 
develop and submit a work plan for a particular year that fails to meet 
one or more requirements in these guidelines. If such circumstances 
arise, and the State believes the circumstances justify 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 (a division of the Office of Water in EPA Headquarters).
    This waiver process applies only to the requirements established by 
these 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 as discussed 
earlier in these guidelines in Section III.B.

Appendix A--Measures and Indicators of Progress and Success

    To measure the progress and success of their nonpoint source 
programs, States will generally need to use at least three sets of 
measures. These include measures to indicate progress towards: (1) 
The State's overall water quality vision of achieving and 
maintaining beneficial uses of water; (2) the long-term goals set by 
the State in its program (e.g., successfully completing the 
implementation of a watershed-based plan and achieving water quality 
standards, or installing appropriate technologies at all animal 
waste facilities that need to be upgraded within a watershed); and 
(3) the shorter-term goals and objectives set by the State (e.g., 
successfully demonstrating a particular technology).
    The following list illustrates measures and indicators which 
States may choose from or add to that will help the States and the 
public measure the progress and success of their programs. States 
may identify and use other measures and indicators that are most 
relevant to their nonpoint source problems, programs, and projects. 
However, States must report on at least the three measures of 
progress that are identified in Section 319(h)(11) (i.e., 
implementation milestones, available information on reductions in 
nonpoint source pollutant loadings, and available information on 
improvements in water quality).
    Well-designed State programs will usually include several 
appropriate measures and indicators from each of the categories set 
forth below for each of their projects or program activities. For 
overall program status and trends, States will generally include 
measure 1.A. below as part of their Section 305(b) reports.
    The categories below are approaches which have been successfully 
used as water-quality and implementation measures and indicators, as 
well as measures of enhanced public education, awareness and action. 
They are presented as examples, not requirements, and should be used 
as starting points for discussion.

1. Water Quality Improvement From Nonpoint Source Controls

     a. Number (or percentage) of river/stream miles, lake acres, 
and estuarine and coastal square miles that fully meet all water 
quality standards.
    b. Number (or percentage) of river/stream miles, lake acres, and 
estuarine and coastal square miles that come into compliance with 
one or more designated uses (e.g., a river segment that is neither 
fishable nor swimmable becomes fishable), or with one or more 
numeric water quality standard (e.g., achieves a standard for 
phosphorus while continuing to exceed a standard for nitrogen).
    c. Demonstrable improvements in relevant surface and ground 
water quality parameters.
    d. Demonstrable improvements in biological or physical 
parameters (e.g., increase in diverse fish or macroinvertebrate 
populations, or improved riparian areas or other measures of 
habitat).
    e. Opening of previously closed shellfish beds.
    f. Lifting of fish consumption advisories.
    g. Prevention of new impairments (e.g,., number of river miles 
removed from the ``threatened'' lists, or number of miles of high-
quality waters protected).

2. Nonpoint Source Pollutant Load Reduction

    a. Reductions in pollutant loadings (e.g., by pounds or 
percentage) from nonpoint sources in watersheds of impaired/
threatened waters.
    b. Reductions in pollutant loadings (e.g., by pounds or 
percentage) from nonpoint sources in high-priority watersheds 
identified by the State.
    c. State-wide reduction in pollutant loadings from nonpoint 
sources.
    d. In the case of nonpoint source pollution which may result 
from activities conducted in the future, prevention or minimization 
of new loadings, and/or offset of new loadings by reductions from 
existing sources.
    e. Reductions in frequencies, or prevention of increases, of 
peak flows in developing or developed areas.

3. Implementation of Nonpoint Source Controls

    a. Number of measures implemented in watersheds of impaired/
threatened waters (e.g., number of on-the-ground practices 
implemented that reflect, for example, the ``best practicable'' 
approach to solve the identified problem.)
    b. Percentage of ``needed'' measures implemented in watersheds 
of impaired/threatened waters (e.g., where watershed analysis has 
shown the need to implement measures at 20 sites, annual progress in 
implementing a watershed project can be shown by the number of BMPs 
installed).
    c. Combination of 2.b and 3.b.
    d. Number of approved or certified plans (e.g., written to 
address erosion and sediment control, storm water, nutrient 
management, or pest management).
    e. Percent of the watershed(s) covered by plans described in 
item 3d.
    f. Percent of facilities covered by plans described in item 3d.
    g. Statistically-based survey of implementation rates (e.g., 
results of State-approved BMP use and effectiveness surveys).

[[Page 60673]]

    h. Percent of priority ground water addressed by nonpoint source 
controls.

4. Public Education, Awareness, and Action

    a. Participation rates in education programs specifically 
directed to solving particular nonpoint source pollution problems.
    b. Statistically-based survey of public awareness, knowledge, 
and action to measure changes in attitudes and action over time.
    c. Participation rates in various nonpoint source activities, 
such as citizen monitoring and watershed resource restoration 
activities.
    d. Participation rates in various public awareness and education 
efforts.

Appendix B--Generic Grant Condition Establishing State Reporting 
Requirements

    The recipient (name of State lead nonpoint source agency) agrees 
to comply with all reporting requirements required by EPA regulation 
and Sections 319(h)(10) and (11) of the Clean Water Act. All 
reporting information will be submitted according to the schedule(s) 
required in 40 CFR parts 31 and 35 regulations and in the ``Nonpoint 
Source Program and Grants Guidelines'' or as subsequently amended. 
The three basic reporting categories include: Grantee Performance 
Reports [40 CFR, part 31.40(b)(1)]; Nonpoint Source Progress Reports 
[CWA, Section 319(h)(11)]; and Financial Status Reports [40 CFR, 
part 31.41(b)].
    The recipient agrees to use the Agency's Grants Reporting and 
Tracking System (GRTS) to provide all nationally mandated data 
elements listed in Appendix C of the nonpoint source program and 
grants guidelines.
    Failure to comply with the above referenced reporting 
requirements may result in a disruption of grantee funding and/or 
early termination of the grant agreement in accordance with 40 CFR 
part 31.43.

Appendix C--Nationally Mandated Data Elements Under Section 319 Grants 
Reporting and Tracking System (GRTS)*

    Following is a list of mandated reporting elements for State 
Section 319 Programs:

1. Project Identification

NPS Program or Project Title
NPS Category (choose from list)
    a. Primary Category (e.g., agriculture, silviculture, or 
hydrologic modification)
    b. Secondary Category of Pollution (e.g., non-irrigated crop 
production, road construction/maintenance, or riparian area 
degradation)
NPS Functional Category (choose from list)
NPS Waterbody Type (choose from list)
NPS Stream Reach Code (linked to WATERS for easy on-line 
identification; for estuaries, latitude/longitude are used in lieu 
of a stream reach code)
Pollutant Type (choose from list)
TMDL Check-off (identifying projects that consist of the development 
of a NPS TMDL; the development of a watershed-based plan to 
implement a TMDL; or the actual implementation of such a plan)
Clean Lakes check-off boxes (yes/no, and if yes, 3 follow-up 
questions)

2. Project Description

Best Management Practices (choose from list, or enter a new one if 
not listed)
Pollutant Type (choose from list)
Project Description (text field with template provided)

3. Accounting for Results on the Ground

a. Load Reductions for Projects Designed to Reduce Nutrients and/or 
Sediment
    [sbull] Identify if project is a BMP implementation project for 
nutrients or sediment
    [sbull] If so, provide an estimate of sediment and/or nutrient 
load reductions
    [sbull] State whether estimate is based on monitoring or 
modeling
    [sbull] Name of model
b. Wetlands/Streambanks/Shorelines: Account for feet of streambanks/
shorelines restored or protected, and acres of wetlands restored or 
protected

4. Accounting for Expenditures of Funds and Implementation of Programs 
and Projects

NPS Budget 319(h) Funds
Number of State Employees (FTEs) supported by 319(h) Funds Under 
this Grant
Amount of 319(h) Funds Allocated to Sub-State Recipients Under this 
Grant
NPS Program or Project Start Code/Date
NPS Program or Project Completion Code/Date
Estimated expenditure breakdown for main source categories after 
project is completed

Appendix D

                                       Factors in Planning Target Formula
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Factor                           Data source           Weighting            Rationale
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Statutory set-aside for Indian Tribes.  Sec.   106 allocation             0.0033  Sec.   518(f).
                                            formula.
II. Other:
    Minimum amount for the States and      N/A........................       0.2643  All States, D.C. and
     Territories.                                                                     territories receive funds
                                                                                      to institutionalize NPS
                                                                                      control activities &
                                                                                      program.
    1988 Section 305(b) Report...........  1988 Draft-10/89...........          N.A  National data used to
                                                                                      determine the weighting
                                                                                      factors for ag, urban,
                                                                                      mining, & forestry as
                                                                                      indicated below.
    Population...........................  1980 Census................       0.2861  Factors include State
                                           1987 Census (est.).........                fraction of national
                                                                                      population, population
                                                                                      density, and population
                                                                                      growth.
    Cropland Acreage.....................  1987 Ag Census.............       0.1581  Cropland is used as a
                                           1987 NRI Data..............                surrogate for sediment and
                                           1980 Census Data...........                nutrient problems, which
                                           1986 ASIWPCA NPS Report....                account for about 85% of
                                                                                      ag NPS problems. Modeling
                                                                                      approach based partly on
                                                                                      1986 ASIWPCA national
                                                                                      data.
    Pasture & Rangeland Acreage..........  1987 Ag Census.............       0.0205  Animal units & animal units/
                                                                                      farm acre used as
                                                                                      surrogate for BOD &
                                                                                      bacteria problems, which
                                                                                      account for about 11% of
                                                                                      the ag NPS problem.
    Forest Harvest Acreage...............  EPA........................       0.0429  Acreage of private &
                                                                                      Federal forest harvested
                                                                                      annually.
    Wellhead Protection Areas............  Wellhead Protection Program       0.1135  Factors include relative
                                           Allotment..................                risk to ground water,
                                           Formula--EPA...............                number of people
                                                                                      potentially impacted,
                                                                                      number of wellheads to be
                                                                                      protected & size of
                                                                                      States.
    Critical Aquatic Habitats............  Dahl, T.E 1990. Wetland           0.0500  State share of total
                                            Losses in the United                      wetland acreage is a
                                            States 1970s 1980s. U.S.                  meaningful surrogate for
                                            Dept. of the Interior,                    critical aquatic habitat
                                            Fish & Wildlife Service,                  since it covers both fresh
                                            Washington, D.C.                          and saline waters.

[[Page 60674]]

 
    Other Use Impact--319(a).............  N/A........................          N/A  All NPS factors for ag,
                                                                                      urban, forestry & mining
                                                                                      are based upon land-based
                                                                                      activities, therefore
                                                                                      addressing impaired &
                                                                                      threatened waters.
    Mining...............................  1987 NRI...................       0.0572  State's fraction of mined
                                           1980 RCA Appraisal.........                acres as surrogate for
                                                                                      mining.
    Pesticides...........................  1987 NRI...................       0.0074  Amount & rate of
                                           1986 National Pesticide....                application of active
                                           Usage Data Base, RFF & EPA.                ingredients for pesticides
                                                                                      recommended for inclusion
                                                                                      in EPA's National
                                                                                      Pesticide Survey.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The weighting for ``Other Factors'' is based on the allocation after National set-asides have been subtracted
  from the total appropriated funds. As a result, the sum of the weighting for ``Other Factors'' is unity.
Note: These factors are unchanged from EPA's current formula.

Appendix E

State-by-State Section 319 Allocation

    This Appendix sets forth, for each State, its percentage of the 
total allocation of Section 319 dollars each year. To calculate the 
allocation provided to a particular State in a particular year, do 
the following:
    1. Begin with the total 319 funding appropriated by Congress for 
the year in question.
    2. Subtract at least 1/3% of the total 319 appropriation for 
distribution to Indian Tribes. (The Clean Water Act allows EPA to 
provide only up to one-third of one percent of the total 319 
appropriation to Tribes. However, for each of the past several 
years, Congress has removed that limitation for the year in 
question, and EPA has provided that $6 million of the total 319 
appropriation should be distributed to eligible Tribes. Since this 
depends on annual congressional appropriations language, the annual 
allocation of Section 319 funds to Indian Tribes cannot be reliably 
predicted.)
    3. Multiply the funds remaining after step 2 by the 
applicable State percentage below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Region 15
Connecticut................................................         0.98
Maine......................................................         1.17
Massachusetts..............................................         1.36
New Hampshire..............................................         0.76
Rhode Island...............................................         0.68
Vermont....................................................         0.74
                          Region 2
New Jersey.................................................         1.67
New York...................................................         3.40
Puerto Rico................................................         0.56
Virgin Islands.............................................         0.27
                          Region 3
Delaware...................................................         0.72
Dist. Of Col...............................................         0.63
Maryland...................................................         1.34
Pennsylvania...............................................         2.95
Virginia...................................................         1.97
West Virginia..............................................         1.10
                          Region 4
Alabama....................................................         1.96
Florida....................................................         3.92
Georgia....................................................         2.34
Kentucky...................................................         1.71
Mississippi................................................         1.92
N. Carolina................................................         2.33
S. Carolina................................................         1.56
Tennessee..................................................         1.59
                          Region 5
Illinois...................................................         4.12
Indiana....................................................         2.25
Michigan...................................................         2.93
Minnesota..................................................         3.46
Ohio.......................................................         3.04
Wisconsin..................................................         2.59
                          Region 6
Arkansas...................................................         1.97
Louisiana..................................................         2.44
New Mexico.................................................         1.22
Oklahoma...................................................         1.58
Texas......................................................         4.75
                          Region 7
Iowa.......................................................         2.29
Kansas.....................................................         1.85
Missouri...................................................         2.31
Nebraska...................................................         1.82
                          Region 8
Colorado...................................................         1.27
Montana....................................................         1.33
N. Dakota..................................................         2.42
S. Dakota..................................................         1.64
Utah.......................................................         0.92
Wyoming....................................................         0.98
                          Region 9
Arizona....................................................         1.64
California.................................................         5.34
Hawaii.....................................................         0.77
Nevada.....................................................         0.85
Am. Samoa..................................................         0.27
Guam.......................................................         0.27
Marianas...................................................         0.27
                         Region 10
Alaska.....................................................         1.22
Idaho......................................................         1.24
Oregon.....................................................         1.39
Washington.................................................         1.92
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix F--Generic Grant Condition Regarding Watershed-Based Plans

    The recipient [name of State lead nonpoint source agency] has 
received a grant to implement one or more watershed-based plans. The 
recipient shall complete the development of a watershed-based plan, 
including all of the information required by elements (a)--(i) in 
Section III. D of these guidelines (``Watershed-Based Plans''), 
prior to beginning to implement it with Section 319 funds.
    Upon request by EPA, the recipient [name of State lead nonpoint 
source agency] shall provide a copy of any watershed-based plan 
funded under Section 319 as well as any available information 
regarding the status of implementation activities and results, 
including but not limited to any reports on BMP's implemented; 319 
funds expended; contributions of funds by other sources to assist in 
implementation of the watershed-based plans (to the extent this 
information is readily available to the State); results achieved; 
and other relevant and appropriate information.

[FR Doc. 03-26755 Filed 10-22-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P