EPA
United States EPA 841-R-24-009
Environmental Protection
Agency
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants
Guidelines for States and Territories
May 4, 2024
-------
Preface
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has finalized revisions to the guidelines for Section 319 grants
under the Clean Water Act (CWA) to states, territories, and the District of Columbia for implementation
of nonpoint source (NPS) management programs. These guidelines apply to grants made with funds
appropriated by Congress under Section 319 of the CWA. in Fiscal Year 2025 and subsequent years. They
replace the Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories that have been in
effect since the FY 2014 grant cycle (hereinafter referred to as the "2014 guidelines").
The revisions were informed by two years of engagements with Section 319 grantees, sub-recipients of
Section 319 funding, and other important stakeholders, as well as public comments received in 2023.
These engagements include a series of facilitated listening sessions in 2022 that focused on barriers and
opportunities to achieve greater equity in the delivery of NPS program benefits. The EPA also
coordinated with the Association of Clean Water Administrators to facilitate four state/EPA workgroups
and two webinars to collect state and territorial recommendations. The EPA accepted public comments
on the draft guidelines from October 31 through December 31, 2023. Alongside the revised guidelines,
the EPA will post supplemental documents on the Section 319 Grant Historic Guidance website.
including the public comment and EPA response documents, more information on the process,
recommendations from the workgroups, and a question-and-answer document to clarify and address
project- and location-specific considerations.
NPS pollution is the leading source of water quality impairment in the United States. Of all the
waterbodies across the nation that have been assessed and a possible source of impairment identified,
85% of rivers and streams and 80% of lakes and reservoirs are polluted by nonpoint sources.1
The success of our nation's overall effort to remediate impaired waters and protect healthy waters
depends greatly on state and territorial agencies effectively coordinating the widespread
implementation of watershed-based plans (WBPs) or acceptable alternatives to restore and maintain
the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters. It requires the devotion and
leveraging of resources and the use of program tools and authorities by a broad array of federal, state,
and local agencies; nonprofit groups; and private citizens. This includes pursuing new opportunities to
finance watershed-scale implementation projects by investing Section 319 funding where it can better
leverage other sources of funding for NPS water quality restoration and protection.
The vast extent and continuous nature of NPS pollution is a daunting challenge. Although not the entire
remedy, the CWA Section 319 program is an essential part of the solution to the costly challenges of NPS
pollution. It is a critical source of support for NPS management programs, watershed-based planning,
and for on-the-ground projects. Section 319 project funds are highly leveraged. For each dollar of
Section 319 project funding, state, local, and federal partners contributed another eight dollars.2
1 (USEPA, 2016) httpsi//www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-10/documents/nps program highlights report-
508.pdf
2 This estimate is based on reported information for waterbodies removed from a state's list of impaired waters
due in part to implementation of a Section 319 project in 2005-2016 and reported to the EPA as a "success story."
-------
These partnerships continue to grow over time, and water quality improvements are measured and
documented as part of NPS program activities. The results are clear; the Section 319 program is making
a difference in communities. To date, the program has documented hundreds of water quality
improvements, including 12,300 miles of rivers and streams and 230,000 acres of lakes and other
waters.
The revisions included in this draft document are intended to advance new science and information,
along with strategies to engage communities and to guide the next implementation phase of the
national NPS Program. Some of the most notable changes include:
• Reaffirmed that the primary goal is the restoration of water quality. Articulated five national
NPS priorities for states to consider when updating their five-year NPS management program
plans, including guidance on how states may balance national priorities with state-specific issues
(Chapter 2).
• Added new expectations and flexibilities, as articulated in the September 2022 Equity Memo, for
states to ensure more equitable access to NPS water quality benefits for disadvantaged
communities, including:
o Flexibility to use watershed project funds to support watershed planning and capacity-
building in disadvantaged communities (Chapter 6.3).
o New expectations to include a description of equity and environmental justice activities in
annual NPS reports (Chapter 8.2).
• Clarified that the complexity of WBPs should be commensurate with the NPS problems that the
plan addresses. Provided new guidance on existing plans that can be leveraged as part of a nine-
element watershed plan and the requirements for alternative watershed plans (Chapters 4.4-4.6).
• Renewed the emphasis on activities to protect healthy waters and removed the limit on the
amount of Section 319 funds that can be used for protection activities (Chapters 2.4 and 7.5).
• Increased the focus on planning for changing climate conditions, including a new emphasis on
the climate adaptation and resiliency co-benefits provided by common NPS best management
practices (Chapters 2.5, 3.2, 4.3 and 7.9).
• Reaffirmed the requirement that 50% of each state Section 319 grant be devoted to watershed
project activities and provided new flexibilities for the kinds of NPS implementation activities
that may be eligible for watershed project funding (Chapters 1.3 and 6).
• Provided a renewed emphasis for states and territories to establish and expand collaborations
with Clean Water State Revolving Fund programs to advance NPS solutions, including a new
priority to support watershed financing partnerships to implement WBPs or acceptable
alternatives (Chapters 2.6, 6.3.3, and 11.2.2).
• Expanded the emphasis on targeting NPS control activities in areas that will protect or restore
sources of drinking water (Chapters 4.5.5, 7.6, 8.4.3 and 11.2.4).
• Clarified the requirements for states to be granted a leverage exemption for the 50% watershed
project funding requirement, including additional flexibility to exercise the exemption for only a
portion of the Section 319 allocation (Chapter 6.6).
• Clarified the types of NPS regulatory program activities that may be funded with program versus
project funding (Chapter 6.5).
-------
• Offered additional options for reporting accomplishments, including metrics focused on
protecting healthy waters, interim milestones, and other program accomplishments
(Chapter 8.7).
• Expanded the description of how the Section 319 program may intersect with or leverage similar
EPA or other federal programs, including more detailed ideas on how states can coordinate with
and leverage U.S. Department of Agriculture and Federal Emergency Management Agency
resources (Chapter 11).
• Updated the regulatory and statutory citations to reflect current requirements and policy, such
as restrictions for implementing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
requirements (Chapter 7.1) and expectations for complying with cross-cutting environmental
laws and other regulatory requirements (Chapter 7.2).
The EPA looks forward to continuing to work with Section 319 grantees and other key stakeholders to
implement an effective and successful Section 319 program.
-------
Acronyms and Abbreviations
BIL
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
BLM
Bureau of Land Management
BMP
best management practice
BRIC
Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities
CAFO
concentrated animal feeding operation
CERCLA
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
CNCPC
coastal nonpoint pollution control programs
CWA
Clean Water Act
CZARA
Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990
CWSRF
Clean Water State Revolving Fund
DWSRF
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EQIP
Environmental Quality Incentive Program
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management Agency
GRTS
Grants Reporting and Tracking System
GPI
Grants Policy Issuance
GSI
green stormwater infrastructure
HMP
hazard mitigation plan
HUC
hydrologic unit code
IUP
intended use plan
MOE
maintenance of effort
MS4
municipal separate storm sewer system
NEP
National Estuary Program
NOAA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPS
nonpoint source
NPSMP
nonpoint source management program
NRCS
Natural Resources Conservation Service
NWQI
National Water Quality Initiative
PPA
Performance Partnership Agreement
PPG
Performance Partnership Grant
RCRA
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCPP
Regional Conservation Partnership Program
REPI
Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration
RFP
request for proposals
TMDL
total maximum daily load
USACE
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USDA
U.S. Department of Agriculture
USFWS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
WBP
watershed-based plan
WQX
Water Quality Exchange
-------
Contents
Preface i
Acronyms and Abbreviations iv
Chapter 1. Introduction 1
1.1 History and Statutory Overview 1
1.2 Scope 2
1.3 Role of Section 319 Grants and Guidelines 2
1.4 Overview of the Grant Process 3
Chapter 2. NPS Program Goals and National Priorities 4
2.1 NPS Program Water Quality Improvement 4
2.2 Reduce Nutrient Pollution 4
2.3 Ensure Equitable Access to NPSMP Benefits 5
2.4 Protect Healthy Waters and Watersheds 5
2.5 Advance Climate Resilience through NPS Solutions 6
2.6 Leverage Innovative Financing for NPS Solutions 6
Chapter 3. Nonpoint Source Management Program Planning 7
3.1 Introduction 7
3.2 Priority Setting 7
3.3 Components of an Effective State Management Program 8
3.4 Maintaining Up-to-Date State Management Plans 8
3.5 The EPA's Role in Nonpoint Source Program Plan Updates 9
Chapter 4. Watershed-Based Planning 10
4.1 The Watershed Approach 10
4.2 Prioritizing WBPs 10
4.3 Developing Resilient and Inclusive WBPs 11
4.4 Developing the WBP for the Unique Scope and Scale of the NPS Problem 11
4.5 Leveraging Existing Plans as Building Blocks 13
4.5.1 Integration with TMDLs 13
4.5.2 NRCS Watershed Assessments as a Basis for Nine-Element WBPs 14
4.5.3 Federal Emergency Management Agency Hazard Mitigation Plans 14
4.5.4 NEP Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan and Annual Work Plans 15
4.5.5 Source Water Protection Plans 15
4.5.6 Geographic Programs 15
4.6 Alternative Watershed-Based Plans 16
4.6.1 Overview 16
4.6.2 Elements of an Alternative Plan 16
4.6.3 Specific Circumstances 17
4.7 EPA's Role in Developing and Reviewing WBPs (Nine-Element and Alternative) 20
-------
Chapter 5. Grant Award Mechanics 21
5.1 Introduction 21
5.2 Statutory and Regulatory Expectations 21
5.2.1 Obligate Funds Within One Year 21
5.2.2 Nonfederal Share is 40% or Greater 21
5.2.3 Using Section 319 Funds for Demonstration Projects 22
5.2.4 States Must Maintain Level of Effort 23
5.2.5 Cap on Administrative Costs 23
5.2.6 Allocation of Funds 24
5.3 Section 319 Grant Work Plan Requirements 24
5.4 Process and Schedule for Awarding Section 319 Grants 26
5.4.1 Grant process overview 26
5.4.2 State Project Solicitation and Selection 26
5.4.3 Process for Awarding Section 319 Grants 28
5.5 State Expenditure of Awarded Funds 30
5.6 Grant Award Approaches 30
5.6.1 Performance Partnership Grants 30
5.6.2 Multiyear Work Plans 31
5.6.3 Territories 32
Chapter 6. Funding Use 33
6.1 Activities Eligible for Funding Under CWA Section 319 33
6.1.1 Tracking Section 319 Funds to Balance Implementation and Program Management 33
6.2 NPS Program Funds 33
6.2.1 Program Management Activities 34
6.2.2 Plan Development Activities 34
6.3 Watershed Project Funds 35
6.3.1 Implementing a Watershed-Based Plan 35
6.3.2 State Staff Activities 35
6.3.3 Coordinating a Watershed Financing Partnership 36
6.4 NPS Program and Watershed Project Funds for Monitoring Activities 36
6.5 NPS Program and Watershed Project Funds for State NPS Regulatory Programs 37
6.6 Exemption from 50% Watershed Project Funding Requirement for Substantial State Fund
Leveraging 38
Chapter 7. General Eligibilities, Requirements, and Limitations 39
7.1 Assessing Project Eligibility and Limitations Related to NPDES Permits 39
7.1.1 Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity for NPS Projects 39
7.1.2 Animal Feeding Operations 39
7.1.3 Abandoned Mine Lands 40
7.1.4 Urban Stormwater Runoff 40
-------
7.2 NPS Work and Cross-Cutting Environmental Compliance Laws 41
7.3 Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments 42
7.4 National Water Quality Initiative Monitoring 43
7.5 Protecting Healthy Waters and Watersheds 44
7.6 Source Water Protection and Section 319 Projects 44
7.7 Lake Restoration and Protection Activities 45
7.8 Monitoring: Context, Flexibilities, and Long-term Programs 45
7.8.1 Integrating with Ambient Monitoring and Assessment Efforts 45
7.8.2 National NPS Long-Term Monitoring 46
7.9 Climate 46
7.9.1 Resilience 47
7.9.2 Co-benefits 47
7.9.3 Integrated Planning 47
Chapter 8. Reporting and Tracking 48
8.1 Statute and Regulatory Background 48
8.2 NPSMP Annual Progress Report 48
8.3 Grant Progress 50
8.3.1 Grantee Performance Reports 50
8.3.2 Federal Financial Reports 50
8.4 The Grants Reporting and Tracking System 50
8.4.1 Tracking Protection Investments and Water Quality Outcomes 51
8.4.2 Tracking Efforts to Advance Equity 52
8.4.3 Tracking Source Water Investments 52
8.5 Water Quality Exchange 52
8.6 Responsibilities for Subrecipients and Reporting 52
8.7 Measuring and Tracking National Program Progress 53
8.7.1 Waters that are Partially or Fully Restored/Delisted (Type 1 - Primary National NPS
Program Reporting Measure) 53
8.7.2 Additional Success Story Options 53
Chapter 9. Management and Oversight 56
9.1 Overview of Management and Oversight of CWA Section 319 Grants 56
9.2 Annual Performance and Progress Determinations 56
9.2.1 Satisfactory Progress Determination 56
9.2.2 Award Conditions Based on Progress Reviews 57
Chapter 10. Waiver Process 58
Chapter 11. Relationship to Other Federal Programs 59
11.1 Introduction 59
11.2 EPA Programs 59
11.2.1 CWA Section 303(d) 59
-------
11.2.2 Clean Water State Revolving Funds and Recycled Loan Funds 60
11.2.3 Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Reuse Municipal Use Grants Program 61
11.2.4 Source Water Protection and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund 61
11.2.5 CWA Section 604(b) 62
11.2.6 CWA Section 106 63
11.2.7 Brownfields Program 63
11.2.8 Technical Assistance Programs 63
11.3 Other Federal Programs 65
11.3.1 USDA: 2018 Farm Bill, NRCS, and NWQI 65
11.3.2 Federal Emergency Management Agency 67
11.3.3 Additional Federal Collaboration Opportunities 69
Appendices A-l
Appendix A. Key Components of an Effective State Nonpoint Source Management Program A-l
Appendix B. Minimum Elements of a Watershed-Based Plan B-l
Appendix C. State-by-State CWA Section 319 Allocation C-l
Appendix D. Guidance and Checklist for Determining the Progress of State NPSMPs and the
Performance of CWA Section 319 Grants D-l
Appendix E. Nationally Consistent Programmatic CWA Section 319 Terms and Conditions E-l
Glossary 1
Information Resources 1
Figure
Figure 1. Chart explaining how multiple CWA Section 319 grants support NPS programs 3
Tables
Table 1. Primary Requirements Applicable to CWA Section 319(h) Grants3 21
Table 2. Overview of EPA's Grant Award, Implementation, and Review Process 27
Table C-l. State-by-State CWA Section 319 Allocation C-l
Table D-l. Example of CWA Section 319(h) Funds, Rates of Expenditures (Unliquidated Obligations)... D-3
-------
Chapter 1. Introduction
1.1 History and Statutory Overview
In 1987, Congress enacted Section 319 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA), which established a national program to control nonpoint
sources of water pollution. CWA Section 101(a)(7) states, "it is the
national policy that programs for the control of nonpoint sources
of pollution be developed and implemented in an expeditious
manner so as to enable the goals of this Act to be met through
the control of both point and nonpoint sources of pollution."
Section 319 elements discussed in these guidelines include:
• Section 319(a): To address NPS pollution, Section 319(a)
required that all states develop NPS assessment reports
that identify waters impacted by NPS pollution, identify
the NPS pollution sources of concern, describe the
processes or strategies to address NPS pollution, and
identify the state and local programs that can assist in
implementing NPS pollution control programs and
priorities.
• Section 319(b): Under Section 319(b), Congress directed
each state to adopt a state Nonpoint Source
Management Program (NPSMP) to control NPS pollution
and submit it to the EPA for approval. These programs
articulate each state's strategy to reduce nonpoint
sources and to achieve/maintain water quality standards.
(For more details on NPSMPs, see Chapters 3 and 6
and Appendix A.) Section 319(b)(4) emphasizes that
states should, as much as possible, develop and
implement their NPSMPs on a watershed basis.
Consistent with that emphasis, states are directed to
use a minimum of 50% of their Section 319 grant3 for
watershed projects that will restore and protect NPS-
impacted waters. (For more details on the watershed
approach, see Chapter 4.)
• Section 319(h). To support states in implementing
their NPSMPs, Section 319(h) provides for grants to
states for which the EPA has approved NPS assessment
reports and approved NPSMPs. (See Chapters 5. 6. 7,
and 8 for more details about the primary requirements
applicable to Section 319(h) grants.)
Nonpoint Source
Pollution
The CWA does not explicitly define
nonpoint source (NPS) pollution.
However, NPS pollution occurs as
pollutants are mobilized by rainfall
or snowmelt flowing over and
through the ground and into lakes,
rivers, streams, wetlands, estuaries
and other coastal waters, and
groundwater. Atmospheric
deposition, habitat alteration, and
hydrologic modification are also
sources of NPS pollution.
NPS pollution is the dominant
source of water quality pollution
and the leading cause of impaired
waters in the United States. Our
nation's water quality challenges
continue to grow with increasing
population and changing land use
and climate conditions. For more
details about NPS pollution, see the
EPA's Polluted Runoff: Nonpoint
Source (NPS) Pollution website.
Section 319 funds helped address acid mine
drainage (top left) from abandoned mine sites
in West Virginia's Deckers Creek watershed.
(For details, read the success story.)
3 The annual Section 319(h) grant is comprised of the federal allocation plus the 40% state match.
-------
Since 1990, Congress has appropriated Section 319(h) funds
annually to states to implement their approved state NPSMPs;
these can include, as appropriate, nonregulatory or regulatory
programs for enforcement, technical assistance, financial
assistance, education, training, technology transfer, and
demonstration projects to achieve implementation of best
management practices (BMPs) and water quality goals. To date,
the program has documented hundreds of water quality
improvements, including 12,300 miles of rivers and streams and
230,000 acres of lakes and other waters. These success stories are
available on the NPS Success Story Webpage.
Section 319 grant recipients and subrecipients must meet all
applicable statutory, regulatory, and other requirements, such as
grant guidelines. (See Chapter 4 for a more detailed description.)
1.2 Scope
These guidelines are directed towards NPSMPs and grants
administered by state and territorial lead NPS agencies
designated under Section 319 of the CWA. These guidelines apply
to states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories of
American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, Guam, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the U.S.
Virgin Islands. (Hereinafter, "state" refers to states, the District of
Columbia, and territories.)
1.3 Role of Section 319 Grants and
Guidelines
Section 319 grants provide important resources to states to
support the implementation of NPSMPs to restore impaired
waters and protect healthy waters. The guidelines provide a
framework for states to use Section 319 grant funds to achieve
the specific goals, objectives, and milestones established in their
approved NPSMPs. Section 319 funds are considered one part of
a multifaceted approach to control NPS pollution. The overall
effectiveness of implementing state NPSMPs relies on the
appropriate use of Section 319 funds, the states' ability to
leverage funding and resources, and collaboration with other
public and private sector entities with common goals to address
NPS pollution.
Tribes and
CWA Section 319
EPA publishes separate Section 319
guidelines forTribal grantees. CWA
Section 518 authorizes EPA to treat
eligible federally recognized Indian
Tribes* in a similar manner as states
("treatment as a state," orTAS) for
the implementation of several CWA
programs, including Section 319.
Each year, EPA awards CWA Section
319 grants to eligible Tribes with
TAS status and EPA-approved
NPSMPs. In fiscal year 2023, there
were 214 Tribes located in nine of
the 10 EPA regions eligible to
receive Section 319 grants from the
EPA.
EPA encourages states to
collaborate with Tribal partners to
address shared NPS water quality
restoration or protection goals,
including through state Section 319
subawards to eligible Tribal entities.
(Note: Tribes are not required to
have Section 319 TAS status from
EPA to be eligible for state Section
319 subawards.) See Chapter 4.6.3
for a description of new state
Section 319 program flexibilities
aimed at increasing opportunities
for state-Tribal NPS coordination.
*EPA recognizes the diversity of terms
that Tribal partners use to self-identify.
To enhance the readability of these
guidelines, "Tribe" is used as a collective
term encompassing Tribe, Band, Nation,
Pueblo, Indigenous group, or
community.
-------
1.4 Overview of the Grant Process
Each year, Congress appropriates funds to the EPA for the Section 319 grant program. A portion of this
amount is allocated for Tribal grants; the remaining funds are allocated to the state NPS agencies
according to a national allocation formula (Appendix C). The EPA notifies states of their Section 319
grant allocations once it receives a final budget. A state may award funds through subawards (contracts
or subawards) to other entities in accordance with the state's NPSMP and procurement requirements.
See Chapter 5.4.1 for more details on EPA, state, and subrecipient roles in implementing an NPSMP.
Annual reporting requirements to evaluate NPSMP progress (Section 319(h)(8), (10), and (11)) and
federal grant rules (2 CFR part 200) are used to determine continued eligibility. As illustrated in Figure 1,
a state will have multiple grants and ongoing work. Good program management and clear milestones
are critical to keep tasks moving toward a state's objectives. See Chapter 8 for reporting progress.
Process for Supporting Ongoing NPS Programs with Multiple Grants
State NPSMP Plan
• Establishes eligibility to receive Section 319(h) grants.
Outlines annual milestones and water quality and programmatic goals.
~ £> H
P R O J E C tT, S
2020-2025
Section 319 Grant
Work Plan ~
2021-2026 ........
Section 319 Grant
Work Plan ~
2022-2027 •••••••«
Section 319 Grant
Work Plan ~
Q
2023-2028 ••••••«£
Section 319 Grant
Work Plan ~
2024-2029
Section 319 Grant
Work Plan
PROJECTS
PROJECTS
PROJECTS
~ ~ ~ ~
Results, Tracking, and Adaptive Management (Ongoing)
^ Grantees submit annual reports that
include environmental results, progress on
milestones, and other grant requirements.
EPA reviews the annual reports to assess whether
grantees are making satisfactory progress (Satisfactory
Progress Determination) and remain eligible for funding.
NPSMP plans are updated
every 5 years, informed by results
and adaptive managment.
Each grant includes
multiple projects.
Figure 1. Chart explaining how multiple CWA Section 319 grants support NPS programs.
-------
Chapter 2. NPS Program Goals and National Priorities
2.1 NPS Program Water Quality Improvement
These program guidelines outline ways the EPA can support state and national priorities. While states
each have their own NPS priorities, federal grants must align with the strategic goals and objectives
contained in the federal awarding agency's performance plan and should support its performance
measurement, management, and reporting (2 CFR 200.202) (e.g., the EPA's Strategic Plan).
The CWA Section 319 NPSMP is an integral component and funding source to help states control NPS
pollution to achieve and maintain beneficial uses of waters. Effective state NPSMPs must maintain and
improve water quality by:
• Defining and focusing on water quality restoration and protection goals to achieve water quality
standards in the state's priority waters/watersheds.
• Clearly articulating NPSMP plan goals and developing annual work plans with actions to advance
those goals.
• Maintaining a balance between planning, staffing, statewide action, and watershed project
implementation that maximizes resources to deliver measurable water quality results. To
support this balance, these guidelines emphasize that a state use at least 50% of its Section 319
grant for watershed projects.
• Leveraging and integrating with additional federal/state agencies, local government,
nongovernmental organizations, and other relevant programs to align planning, priority-setting,
and resources to best use available resources to control NPS pollution.4
• Tracking and reporting results to demonstrate program progress and success.
The following sections outline national priorities for the Section 319 program that states should consider
incorporating into future NPS management plans and work plans.
2.2 Reduce Nutrient Pollution
Nitrogen and phosphorus pollution significantly affects drinking water supplies, aquatic life, and water
quality in all types of waters—rivers, streams, lakes, reservoirs, estuaries, wetlands, and coastal areas.
Scientific and practical consensus shows that nutrient pollution's scope, impacts, and costs present a
serious and compelling reason for more urgent and effective action. The Section 319 program plays an
important role by investing in and pursuing strategies to reduce excess nutrients reaching our nation's
waters. Efforts include deepening and expanding collaboration with the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA), states, Tribes, territories, local governments, agriculture, industry, academia, and the broader
water sector to identify, highlight, and scale effective nutrient-reduction approaches. Targeted NPS
management of source waters may also help drinking water systems reduce health-based violations
4 For example, under the EPA's 2022-2032 Vision for the CWA Section 303(d) Program, states, territories, and
authorized Tribes are developing integrated long-term "Prioritization Frameworks" to coordinate program
activities in the context of broader water quality goals to strategically focus limited resources. See the EPA's
2024 Integrated Reporting Memorandum.
-------
relating to drinking water contamination from microbial contaminants, harmful algal blooms, nitrate,
and disinfection byproducts. These guidelines emphasize the leading role that state NPSMPs have in
developing plans and building financial collaboration with other interested parties to implement
nutrient-reduction practices. For more information on the EPA's efforts to reduce nutrient pollution, see
the 2022 EPA nutrient reduction memorandum.
2.3 Ensure Equitable Access to NPSMP Benefits
The EPA prioritizes integrating environmental justice considerations into EPA programs, plans, and
actions to ensure all individuals have equitable and fair access to environmental program benefits.5 6
The EPA's national NPS Program is devoted to protecting and restoring waters from sources of NPS
pollution. In delivering this work, the NPSMP benefits thousands of communities through the efforts of
state, territorial, and Tribal NPSMPs in collaboration with dedicated local organizations. The EPA
recognizes that water quality and climate change impacts can disproportionately affect urban and rural
communities that may be populated by minority, low-income, Indigenous, and linguistically isolated
populations. The EPA is committed to ensuring that the resources to address NPS pollution and the
benefits of cleaner water resulting from Section 319 grants reach disadvantaged communities.7 As such,
these guidelines have incorporated new expectations and flexibilities articulated in recent national NPS
Program memos.8
2.4 Protect Healthy Waters and Watersheds
The EPA has long recognized water quality protection as a key part of NPS pollution management efforts
to achieve the CWA objective "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of
the Nation's waters" (33 United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 1251(a); CWA Section 101(a)). Proactively
protecting watersheds and waterbodies can help protect communities from future threats, such as
emerging water quality problems, drinking water supply disruptions and health-based violations,
fragmentation of aquatic habitat, altered water flow, invasive species, and other impacts associated
with changing climate conditions. These guidelines place a renewed emphasis on actions to protect
healthy waters, including high quality, unimpaired, outstanding national resource waters, and at-risk
waters that are degrading and not yet impaired, by providing states greater flexibility to use CWA
Section 319 funds for protection activities consistent with state NPSMP goals.9 The EPA recognizes the
critical role of protection in achieving national NPS Program goals, including (1) protecting healthy
waters and watersheds can prevent the need for water quality restoration, as well as help ensure
restoration success, (2) implementing protection efforts help maintain healthy watersheds that are
resilient to the effects of changes in land use, climate, and other water quality threats, and
(3) conducting proactive watershed planning and management can help organize partners and gather
5 https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-adminjstrator-announces-ag_en^-actions-advance-environiT|enta|-iustice
6 httpsi//www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice
7 Disadvantaged communities are those that are marginalized, underserved, and overburdened by pollution. See
the glossary for additional details.
8 https://www.epa.gov/nps/equity-resources#:~:text=Guiding%20Documents%3A,of%20this%20goal
9 Under previous state 319 guidelines, the EPA referred to protection of "unimpaired/high quality waters." These
guidelines now refer to the protection of "healthy waters" to more fully represent the types of waters states may
prioritize for protection, as well as to align with the protection of healthy waters, as described in the EPA's CWA
Section 303(d) Vision document.
-------
support in protecting critical water resources, such as public drinking water supplies. The EPA is
committed to supporting states in growing and refining their NPS protection efforts, including by
facilitating technical exchanges and leveraging resources and collaboration advanced through the EPA's
Healthy Watersheds Program.
2.5 Advance Climate Resilience through NPS Solutions
Communities across the country are affected by the impact of climate change on water resources.10
Climate change is causing more frequent and longer droughts, water supply shortages, wildfires,
frequent and more intense storms, flooding, and sea-level rise. These events have broader effects on
the NPS program. For example, higher temperatures can affect water chemistry, which can increase
eutrophic conditions. More frequent and intense storms can result in more pollutant runoff, including
sewer overflows and eroded shorelines. Longer growing seasons may also increase NPS pollution
loadings over time. The resulting water quality impairments can threaten natural systems, affect
community and economic health, and diminish or eliminate people's recreational opportunities. The
Section 319 program plays an important role by supporting state, Tribal, and local government efforts to
develop WBPs and implement NPS controls that provide significant climate resilience and adaptation co-
benefits. These guidelines continue to prioritize nature-based solutions to help mitigate the impacts of
those natural hazards. They also include expectations that BMPs are designed to be climate resilient.
2.6 Leverage Innovative Financing for NPS Solutions
The CWA includes an expectation for states to use Section 319 grants to help leverage long-term
investments in NPS implementation at the watershed scale. The EPA's NPS Success Stories show that
Section 319 grants have played a critical role in attracting funds from various other sources, multiplying
collective investments in the watershed. For example, the EPA continues to encourage states to explore
collaboration between their Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) programs and NPSMPs to
expand the use of CWSRF financing to address priority NPS needs. These guidelines provide new
incentives for investments in CWSRF watershed financing partnerships. (See Chapter 6.3.3 for more
details.)
Chapter 11 also highlights EPA and other federal programs that offer funding to address water quality
problems, support programs with complementary goals, and pursue the potential for expanding existing
or establishing new collaborations.
10 httpsi//www.epa.gov/climate-adaptation/climate-adaptation-plans
-------
Chapter 3. Nonpoint Source Management Program
Planning
3.1 Introduction
CWA Section 319(b) requires all states to adopt NPSMP plans that guide the use of Section 319
resources to reduce NPS pollution. State NPSMP plans allow states to identify Section 319 strategic
priorities, develop and track goals and milestones, and work more effectively to engage stakeholders to
address the evolving condition of their waters. The statutory expectations of elements to include in an
NPSMP Plan are in Chapter 3.3. State NPSMP plans should be current and inclusive of all potential state
management activities and strategies because only those strategies and activities covered in the state's
NPSMP are eligible for use of Section 319 grants.
3.2 Priority Setting
Plans should optimize resources and align with state-specific priorities to produce a plan that uniquely
reflects the state's water quality goals. As state NPS programs tailor their programs to address their
program goals to maintain and improve water quality, they should consider the current federal priorities
outlined in Chapter 2. These national priorities align closely with NPS challenges; however, the EPA
recognizes differences in specific priorities due to unique state NPS pollutant sources or hydrogeologic
and/or meteorologic conditions.
Climate Resilience and Adaptation: Strategies to address NPS pollutants should consider any BMP
design changes that might be needed in response to increased climate variability (e.g., increased storm
intensity, drought, wildfires, rising temperature). For example, rising water temperatures can contribute
to increased algal growth and potential cyanobacteria blooms. In these cases, a state may consider
implementing BMPs that specifically target nutrient or temperature reduction in affected areas. In
addition, states might wish to implement management measures like nature-based solutions that
reduce NPS pollutants and help mitigate the impact of natural hazards. For example, restoring or
protecting floodplains can reduce NPS pollutant delivery to waterbodies, improve overall aquatic habitat
conditions, and trap and control runoff from storms to mitigate high-flow events and reduce flood risk
downstream. States may also include the targeted ability to respond to natural disaster emergencies
that threaten the water quality, such as flood or wildfire events.
Equity: Incorporate a strategy to ensure equitable access to the benefits of NPSMP efforts for all
communities. Depending on prior work in a state NPS program, this might range from simply conducting
a preliminary assessment and identifying barriers to actively implementing engagement efforts to
evaluating progress to address barriers.
Protection: States that have prioritized protection efforts as a part of their NPSMP plan should
incorporate strategies for implementing and measuring protection efforts into their plan. Healthy
waters prioritized for protection by state NPS programs may include, for example, unimpaired waters,
at-risk waters, outstanding national resources waters or other specific category of high-quality waters,
healthy aquatic resources, and source water (including groundwater).
Additional details can be found in Appendix A.
-------
3.3 Components of an Effective State Management Program
Consistent with Section 319, an effective and approvable state NPSMP plan includes the following seven
components (additional details on these components can be found in Appendix A):
1. Identify water restoration and protection goals and the program strategies (regulatory,
nonregulatory, financial and technical assistance, as needed) to achieve and maintain water
quality standards. It includes relevant, current, and trackable annual milestones that best
support program implementation.
2. Identify the primary categories and subcategories of NPS pollution and a process for prioritizing
impaired and unimpaired waters and identify how national and state priorities may align (see
Chapter 2).
3. Identify management measures that will be undertaken to reduce pollutant loadings resulting
from each category, subcategory, or particular nonpoint source identified in component 2
above. The measures should also consider the impact of the BMPs on groundwater quality.
4. Use both watershed projects and well-integrated regional or statewide programs to restore and
protect waters, achieve water quality benefits, and advance any relevant climate resiliency
goals.
5. Identify and enhance the state's collaboration with appropriate federal, state, interstate, Tribal,
and regional agencies as well as local entities (including conservation districts, private sector
groups, utilities, and citizens groups) that will be utilized to implement the state program.
Furthermore, the state supports capacity-building in disadvantaged, underserved, or
overburdened communities.
6. Show how the state manages and implements its NPSMP efficiently and effectively, including
necessary financial management.
7. Evaluate the state's NPSMP using environmental and functional measures of success and revise
its NPSMP plan at least every five years.
The state should also certify through the state agency's chief attorney (or state attorney general) that
the laws of the state provide adequate authority to implement such management program (Section
319(b)(2)(D)). While the expectation is that NPSMPs are revised every five years, those revisions do not
necessarily require recertification. The EPA encourages states to reach out to their regional NPS contact
with questions about whether recertification is needed.
3.4 Maintaining Up-to-Date State Management Plans
The NPSMP update process is necessary to ensure the implementation of an effective, targeted, and
relevant approach to address NPS pollution while also guiding the use of Section 319 resources. States
are required to review and update their NPSMPs every five years to keep them relevant. States that do
not maintain current NPSMPs risk a determination of unsatisfactory progress under Section 319(h)(8)
and subsequent ineligibility for Section 319(h) grants (see Chapter 9.2). Updates need not be
comprehensive unless warranted by significant program changes, but they may focus on specific
outdated elements. States are encouraged to engage with the EPA, Tribes, and other interested
stakeholders early in the updating process. At a minimum, the update should ensure that the state's
goals, objectives, and annual milestones are current while also addressing state and national priorities.
-------
3.5 The EPA's Role in Nonpoint Source Program Plan Updates
State NPSMP plan updates and amendments must be reviewed and approved by the EPA regional
administrator (but more typically, the EPA regional water division director through redelegation). The
EPA recommends that states submit draft NPSMP plan updates for EPA review before the state's
finalization procedures (e.g., response to public comment, submission to the governor's office) are
complete to ensure that the EPA can address any concerns that may prevent its approval. NPSMP plan
approvals should be consistent with the EPA's and state delegations or authorizations.
-------
Chapter 4. Watershed-Based Planning
4.1 The Watershed Approach
Watersheds benefit humans and wildlife, providing clean drinking water, recreational and economic
opportunities, habitat, productive fisheries, and breeding grounds. As the United States faces increased
environmental pressure from population expansion, land management,11 and altered environmental
conditions due to climate change, continuing to restore and protect watersheds will be imperative to
ensuring current and future generations have access to clean and safe water.
The EPA along with other entities inside and outside the government have demonstrated that the
watershed approach is the most effective means of addressing the greatest challenge to our water
resources, NPS pollution. The watershed approach is a framework that focuses efforts on an area of land
that drains to a specific point, such as the confluence of two rivers, a lake, or a coastal estuary. This
framework guides the generation of a watershed-based plan (WBP) that addresses impairments and
threats to water quality. Watershed-based planning is commonly characterized by diverse, well-
integrated collaboration; coordinated priority setting; integrated solutions; and a specific geographic
focus driven by environmental and public health objectives supported by strong science and data. A
watershed-based planning framework addresses water quality problems holistically by fully assessing
the causes and sources of pollution and prioritizing restoration and protection strategies to address
these problems.
The EPA continues to require that any watershed implementation projects funded under CWA Section
319 directly implement nine-element WBPs. WBPs containing the nine elements identified in the EPA's
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect our Waters, and in Appendix B of
these guidelines, provide an effective, integrated approach to address the diverse realities and needs of
each watershed as well as a roadmap to guide cost-effective, well-informed restoration and protection
efforts. The EPA strongly supports this approach and continues to emphasize nine-element WBPs as the
primary planning framework for Section 319 watershed projects. However, a subset of those elements
can be used for an EPA-approved alternative plan. In select scenarios, these guidelines provide states
flexibility to use Section 319 watershed project funds to implement an EPA-approved alternative plan
and support community demonstration projects in disadvantaged communities.
4.2 Prioritizing WBPs
State programs have the discretion to prioritize WBP development consistent with the goals and
milestones articulated in their NPSMP plan. When choosing where to develop WBPs, states may elect to
target watersheds that align with state program priorities for water quality restoration/protection, have
willing stakeholders that can leverage other technical and financial resources, or extend NPS water
quality benefits to underserved communities. Additionally, states may consider protection-focused WBP
development in watersheds that are currently unimpaired, those that will be affected by projected land
use alteration (e.g., urban sprawl), and those containing communities already experiencing
disproportionately high adverse impacts from changing climate conditions.
11 USGS, 2019. Flow modification of the nation's rivers and streams. Report 1461.
-------
States and EPA regions should ensure that a proper balance exists between funding the development
and implementation of WBPs and total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) to meet the annual milestones
and schedules in the state NPSMP. States should support the development of WBPs at a sufficient pace
to advance implementation efforts funded through Section 319 and other funding sources. However,
states should also be careful not to use Section 319 funds for WBP and TMDL development at a pace
that significantly exceeds the rate of implementation, as these plans may become outdated before they
can be implemented. The EPA may consider whether a plan reflects current conditions when reviewing
work plans that implement a WBP. For states where many WBPs and TMDLs have been developed, the
EPA encourages the state to direct Section 319 funds to help implement these plans, either through
watershed projects or by leveraging other funding sources for implementation.
4.3 Developing Resilient and Inclusive WBPs
States should continue developing WBPs that target the implementation of high-priority NPS restoration
and protection goals identified in the state NPSMP plan. States should consider undertaking the
following activities to ensure WBPs provide broad access to NPSMP benefits and adapt to future
changes in climate conditions.
• Climate Resiliency in WBPs: WBPs should address NPS issues in a holistic manner, including
guiding efforts to restore currently impaired waters and protect waters threatened by existing
and future NPS pollution. When developing a WBP, states should consider how the plan
strategically accounts for climate change impacts and how climate resiliency or vulnerability
may affect implementation. Basing management recommendations solely on current watershed
conditions can result in failure to address the increasing water quality or quantity problems that
may accompany severe or even modest climate change impacts. All WBPs should include BMPs
and measures that can be adapted to a changing climate and have built-in flexibility to scale
implementation efforts as conditions change; this will allow the state to maintain the pollutant
reductions needed to achieve or maintain water quality standards under future conditions.
• Engaging in inclusive watershed-based planning with communities: Successfully developing
and implementing WBPs depends on the commitment and involvement of community
members, including those who have historically been underserved and/or overburdened. The
EPA believes all individuals and communities should have fair and equitable access to the
benefits of environmental programs and implementation activities. States should ensure that
communities with nonpoint source pollution contributing to disproportionately adverse human
health, water quality, climate-related, and socioeconomic cumulative impacts are represented
in the development and implementation of WBPs. As part of their WBPs, states may prioritize
and document NPS implementation activities that provide environmental benefits to these
historically underserved and/or overburdened communities.
4.4 Developing the WBP for the Unique Scope and Scale of the NPS
Problem
Watershed-based planning should carefully consider of the unique challenges and opportunities
inherent to a given watershed. For example, to reduce urban NPS impacts, urban WBPs should
incorporate knowledge of stormwater control measures, green stormwater infrastructure (GSI), and
hydrologic alteration. Arid-environment WBPs need to emphasize water quantity and water quality due
-------
to lower precipitation rates and/or wildfire risks. States with significant open space, forest areas, and
agricultural/pasture lands should identify large, connected land areas that are eligible for land
preservation, conservation easements, and riparian buffer protection. BMPs of this nature provide co-
benefits such as climate resiliency, flood mitigation and drinking water protection. The EPA expects
WBPs to reflect the scale and scope of the issues in each watershed. Given the unique nature of
individual watersheds and the goals of local stakeholders, WBPs should incorporate local priorities
alongside national priorities throughout the planning process.
The level of detail needed to address the nine elements of WBPs will vary in proportion to the
homogeneity of land use types and the variety and complexity of pollution sources and solutions. For
example, densely developed urban and suburban watersheds often have multiple sources of pollution
from historical and current activities such as Superfund sites, point sources, solid waste disposal, road
salt (storage and application), oil handling, stormwater-caused erosion, road maintenance, agricultural
activities, etc. Because of this, plans in urban and suburban watersheds will often be more complex than
in predominantly rural settings in these cases. For this reason, plans for urban and suburban watersheds
may need to be developed and implemented at a smaller scale than watersheds with agricultural lands
of a similar character. The EPA encourages states and WBP developers to refer to the Handbook for
Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters to assess the right level of detail to fully
address their planning needs. The level of detail needed to develop a WBP will be contingent on the
scale and scope of the watershed; coordinating with EPA regional NPS staff is encouraged to help
determine what is appropriate. While watershed planning is an iterative and adaptive process, all plans
(including WBPs and acceptable alternatives) should include enough information to provide assurance
that the water quality problem can be addressed through the recommended management strategies
outlined in the plan.
States should also consider the appropriate scale for their planning efforts. Watershed programs are
often encouraged to focus on small-scale WBPs to ensure effective restoration. For example, most
watershed-based planning efforts to implement water pollution control practices occur at a 10-digit or
12-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC) level.12This scale allows for effective monitoring/assessment and the
development of an achievable implementation plan.13 However, in some arid regions, a smaller
geographic area might not include sufficient water resources or available stakeholders to allow
implementation, thus requiring a plan that covers a larger area to be effective. In this case, a larger-scale
WBP comprising a group of 12-digit HUC subwatersheds or even an 8-digit HUC subbasin (equivalent to
a medium-sized river basin) may be preferable to multiple smaller-scale WBPs. Regardless of the scale of
planning objectives, implementation projects and effectiveness monitoring should target a smaller scale
to support sufficient detail and achieve effective water quality improvements. Understanding broad-
scale differences in geographic settings will allow states to implement programs more effectively in
different regions with different planning needs. WBP developers should coordinate with EPA regional
reviewers early in the process to agree on a level of adaptability, identify areas that may need updating,
and agree on the appropriate spatial scale to achieve effective implementation.
12 Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters, page 4-7
13 Monitoring and Evaluating Nonpoint Source Watershed Projects, page 2-31
-------
4.5 Leveraging Existing Plans as Building Blocks
The EPA encourages efficiency in the planning process by leveraging other relevant planning documents,
and states are encouraged to use existing information to fulfill some or all the required elements. This
can be done where the necessary information already exists, represents the current conditions, and is of
sufficient quality and detail for the planning area. Examples of such documents may include various
state and local watershed planning documents like TMDLs and associated implementation
plans/approaches, source water protection assessments and plans, USDA's Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) National Water Quality Initiative (NWQI) Watershed Assessments, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coral Reef Watershed Management Plans, the EPA's
National Estuary Program (NEP) Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans, NEP annual
project work plans, or geographic program management plans. In such cases, this information could be
incorporated by reference14 in a WBP while also ensuring that the nine elements are fully addressed in
the WBP. To increase efficiency for plan reviewers and writers, states or plan developers who choose to
incorporate existing planning documents should use a table or crosswalk to direct readers to the
appropriate elements, documents (with hyperlinks), and pages. EPA regional reviewers are encouraged
to work with writers to identify or provide clarification on using other planning documents to support or
supplement elements as appropriate.
4.5.1 Integration with TMDLs
The EPA believes that better integrating TMDLs and WBPs to implement NPS management measures will
improve efficiency and help accelerate the achievement of water quality standards. TMDL and NPS
programs often operate independently from one another. The EPA encourages coordination between
the two programs to best leverage available technical and financial resources and strengthen the links
between watershed-based planning and achieving TMDL targets in the impaired waterbody.
A TMDL is the calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that may enter a waterbody so that
the waterbody will meet and continue to meet water quality standards. A TMDL determines a pollutant
target (loading capacity), allocates loads to point and nonpoint sources, and provides a margin of safety.
Where a TMDL for the affected waters is being developed or has already been developed and approved,
the WBP must be designed to achieve the NPS pollutant load reductions necessary to meet the loadings
set by the TMDL. In cases where a TMDL and a TMDL implementation plan exist and adequately address
many of the nine elements of a WBP, the EPA encourages states and WBP developers to incorporate this
information by reference in the WBP.
Where a TMDL has not yet been developed and/or approved, the EPA encourages states and territories
to address elements of WBPs concurrently with TMDLs. By developing TMDLs and WBPs together, states
can ensure that NPS load allocations are current and that WBP writers have the complete and up-to-
date load reduction target information available as they develop a plan. NPS staff bring knowledge of
BMP effectiveness and feasibility to ensure that the TMDL's NPS load reduction goals are achievable.
Once the TMDL is in place, coordination between programs can facilitate TMDL implementation.
14 Reference to documents should include the page(s) or sections that are relevant to specific WBP elements.
-------
By integrating TMDLs and WBPs, states can use information submitted with the TMDLto inform the
WBP. Details developed during the TMDL process may help complete elements (a), (b), and parts of
(c) as well as other elements of a WBP—at least for the watershed areas subject to the TMDL See
Chapter 6.2.2 on using Section 319 funds to develop a TMDL
States may also use Section 319 funds to develop a WBP in the absence of a TMDL Nine-element WBPs
written in areas without an approved TMDL should be designed to attain water quality standards to the
greatest extent possible given the available information, or they should describe how implementing the
WBP will make progress towards achieving water quality standards before a TMDL is established.15
Where a WBP was developed before a TMDL, the WBP should be modified as appropriate to be
consistent with the load allocation in a subsequent TMDL. Alternatively, through the process of
implementing the WBP, the state may find that water quality standards are met, obviating the need to
establish a TMDL.
4.5.2 NRCS Watershed Assessments as a Basis for Nine-Element WBPs
NRCS requires that watershed assessments at the HUC-12 scale be developed before advancing
watersheds to the "implementation" phase of the NWQI program. While the focus of these watershed
assessments is on agricultural sources and is limited to nutrients, sediments, and pathogens, elements
of these assessments overlap with and can serve as building blocks for Section 319 nine-element WBPs.
For example, both the NRCS watershed assessment and EPA nine-element plans include sections related
to background and purpose, watershed description/characterization, and watershed conditions/
hydrological characterizations, which could include similar information regardless of whether the NPS
focus is agricultural or other pollutants. Nine-element plans may also inform NRCS watershed
assessments—states should coordinate with NRCS state conservationists and the EPA to best use plans
developed for the purposes of Section 319 funding for NWQI implementation or vice-versa (Chapter 7.4).
Additional flexibilities are available if a state intends to use an NRCS watershed assessment to support a
nine-element WBP in an agriculture-intensive watershed (see Chapter 4.6.3).
4.5.3 Federal Emergency Management Agency Hazard Mitigation Plans
When developing and/or approving a watershed plan, NPSMP staff should be aware of state or local
hazard mitigation plans (HMPs) that include mitigation strategies or action items focused in the same
geographic area as the target watershed. Watershed planners should account for mitigation actions that
may impact hydrology, flow, or water quality in the watershed or mitigation strategies or action items
that include nature-based solutions. Watershed planners should look to the HMP to discern whether
critical areas—areas within a watershed that contribute a disproportionality large amount of pollution-
align with target areas for mitigation strategies/action items.
To the extent possible in situations where planning areas align (i.e., a local HMP includes strategies or
action items that intersect with critical areas of the target watershed), watershed planners should
coordinate project planning and implementation with the mitigation planner(s) or emergency
manager(s) responsible for HMP implementation. By regularly communicating about plans and projects
15 In appropriate cases, a WBP could qualify as an "Advance Restoration Plan" for purposes of the EPA's 2022-2032
Vision for the CWA Section 303(d) Program and associated metrics. See the EPA's 2024 Integrated Reporting
Memorandum.
-------
occurring in the same geographic areas at the same time, NPS coordinators and hazard mitigation
officers can avoid duplicating efforts while promoting opportunities to collaborate and share
information and resources between agencies and organizations. If a draft HMP is being developed in an
area that intersects with a watershed plan, NPSMPs are encouraged to be involved in the HMP
development process where appropriate. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has
more information about hazard mitigation planning.
By collaborating with state or local hazard mitigation planners or emergency managers, all parties can
understand if and where critical water quality and target areas for mitigation actions align, and they can
identify and share data sources to better inform the watershed plan, HMP, or both. Planners can work
together to implement BMPs of mutual interest, which can produce resiliency and water quality co-
benefits. This collaboration has the potential to produce more comprehensive WBPs and HMPs that
appropriately plan for water quality priorities, climate adaptations, and resiliency considerations that
can influence project design and selection and project implementation.
4.5.4 NEP Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan and Annual Work Plans
NEPs must develop annual work plans that identify the year's priorities, activities, and deliverables.
During the work plan process, states may want to work with their local NEP to identify opportunities for
collaboration or leveraging funds. As per the NEP's 2021-2024 National Estuary Program Funding
Guidance, the program areas of special interest align with the NPS national priorities outlined above,
including reducing nutrient pollution, adding GSI, and building resiliency. Like WBPs, Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plans are living documents and should be assessed every three to five
years, with revisions occurring every 10 years. During this assessment process, state NPSMPs should
consider collaborating with their local NEP to align priorities and share resources as appropriate.
4.5.5 Source Water Protection Plans
The 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments require Source Water Assessment Programs to include
the delineation of the land area(s) that provide water to each public drinking water source, an inventory
of existing and potential sources of contamination in those areas, and an assessment of the
susceptibility of each drinking water source to contamination. State or local source water protection
programs may also have an action plan to protect or restore the water quality or quantity of a drinking
water source, including defined implementation tasks and milestones, resource needs, and a timeline
for achieving goals. Source water protection planning documents likely include information on NPS
pollution management strategies that may align with NPS objectives, such as reducing nutrient pollution
and occurrence of harmful algal blooms, building resiliency to climate change, informed land use
planning, responsible stormwater management, education and outreach, and effective water quality
monitoring. These assessments and plans may be available from the state source water protection
program or a public water system. States NPSMPs may benefit from partnering with state source water
protection and drinking water programs and/or public water systems to identify common goals and
leverage funds and resources.
4.5.6 Geographic Programs
States in an EPA region that contains an EPA Geographic Program can use larger geographic planning
documents to support WBP development. These planning documents are a good starting point but
should not be used for watershed project implementation. However, they can be used to narrow the
scope on areas where water quality improvements are likely. As mentioned in Chapter 4.5. plan
-------
developers should clearly identify where in the planning document a reviewer can find information
related to specific elements.
4.6 Alternative Watershed-Based Plans
4.6.1 Overview
The EPA recognizes that many states and local groups already have in place or are developing WBPs and
strategies at varying levels of scale, scope, and specificity. In a few select cases listed below, the EPA
recognizes that an alternative plan to a WBP, also called an "alternative plan," may provide an effective
roadmap to achieve the water quality goals of Section 319-funded restoration or protection efforts.
In such cases, states must provide the regional EPA NPS contact with justification for why a complete
nine-element WBP is unnecessary and why an alternative plan is sufficient to guide watershed project
implementation. Incorporating considerations for circumstances described below, into the state's
NPSMP will allow states to respond quickly to NPS pollution issues that would benefit from an
alternative plan.
Except when addressing an NPS pollution emergency or urgent NPS public health risk, the EPA requires
all projects implementing a WBP or acceptable alternative plan to directly address priorities outlined in
the state NPSMP. Before implementation, all plans should include an analysis sufficient to ensure that
the water quality problem or threat can be addressed through the recommended management
strategies outlined in the plan.
When developing alternative plans, the EPA encourages states and partners to build on existing planning
documents that adequately address some or all the required elements (see below for a complete list).
Like nine-element WBPs, existing planning documents, such as TMDLs, TMDL implementation plans, and
other restoration or protection plans, may serve as valuable building blocks for an alternative plan.
When using existing planning documents, the alternative plan should clearly reference those
documents.
4.6.2 Elements of an Alternative Plan
EPA regions will review and approve all alternative plans, with some exceptions (see Chapt ), to
ensure the following planning elements are adequately addressed:
• Describe watershed project goal(s) and explain how the proposed project(s) will achieve water
quality goals.
• Identify the causes or sources of NPS impairments, water quality problems, or threats to healthy
waters, including critical source areas addressed by the alternative plan.
• Propose management measures and BMPs (including a description of operation and
maintenance requirements) and explain how these measures will effectively address the NPS
impairment identified above.
• Establish a schedule with milestones to guide project implementation.
• Include a water quality results monitoring component describing the processes and measures
(e.g., water quality parameters, stream flow metrics, biological indicators) that will help gauge
project success.
-------
4.6.3 Specific Circumstances
Plan developers are encouraged to notify their EPA regional and state contacts when situations may
warrant using an alternative plan.16 EPA regions may authorize the use of watershed project funding to
implement alternative plans described below in the following circumstances:
1. When the impairment is caused by a change in physical conditions or is otherwise not pollutant-
specific.
The current WBP approach emphasizes identifying major NPS pollutant sources in critical areas
as well as planning for and achieving NPS pollutant load reductions. In scenarios where a water
body impairment is not caused by a pollutant (e.g., waters assigned to Category 4C in the CWA
Section 303(d) program), an alternative plan may be sufficient to guide CWA Section 319-funded
watershed projects. Circumstances where an alternative plan might be appropriate include
hydrologic alteration (e.g., flow alteration) or habitat alteration (e.g., fish passage barriers).
Sources of hydrologic and habitat alteration may include impoundments, dams, channelization,
levees, water withdrawals, and culverts. Climate change is expected to exacerbate changes to
the natural flow regime resulting from anthropogenic hydrological alteration. For this scenario,
the state must provide assurance that appropriate watershed analyses were conducted to
ascertain that the water quality problem will be fully addressed by dealing with the pollution
source.
2. When responding to an NPS pollution emergency or urgent NPS public health risk.
In scenarios where the proposed Section 319 project(s) responds to an urgent, unplanned NPS
pollution emergency or urgent NPS public health risk in an area for which a WBP does not exist
or address the post-emergency situation (e.g., efforts to control erosion and re-establish
vegetation in the immediate aftermath of a forest fire, efforts to reduce pollution affecting
drinking water safety, other climate-related events), an alternative plan may be developed to
ensure the timely, targeted use of watershed project funds.
Where an existing WBP addresses the NPS pollution but does not address post-emergency
circumstances, the alternative plan should simply provide the updates needed to supplement
the WBP sufficiently to ensure Section 319 funds are well used to successfully address the
priority water quality problem(s) in the area addressed by the alternative plan.
Efforts to respond to an NPS pollution emergency or urgent NPS public health risk should be
handled by the appropriate state and local emergency or public health agencies. In the recovery
phase, alternative plans can be used to guide short-term targeted restoration work. Because
these events are unplanned, states may not have funds for developing and implementing
alternative plans to address these situations. If funds are needed, states should work with their
EPA region to realign funds in existing Section 319 budgets, set aside funds in future Section 319
grant budgets, or use alternative funding mechanisms as appropriate.
Unless highly expedited, project solicitation processes are not likely appropriate for projects
implementing this type of alternative plan. Alternative plans for NPS pollution emergencies and
public health risks should target implementation at the beginning of the recovery or mitigation
16 A state may choose to develop a nine-element WBP for a specific circumstance that would otherwise qualify for
an alternative plan.
-------
phase (phases following the response) and within months of the emergency or public health
risk. They should not be started more than two years beyond the emergency or public health
risk. Implementation, monitoring, and reporting of alternative plans for emergency response
should be completed within 48 months to ensure the plan is truly an alternative plan.
Restoration efforts starting more than two years after the emergency (including management of
ongoing, longer-term vulnerabilities such as tree death that threatens slope instability) should
be guided by WBPs.
An alternative plan for responding to an NPS pollution emergency or urgent NPS public health
risk could be presented in a separate plan or in a project proposal format; existing planning
documents may be summarized and cited to fully address the relevant elements listed below.
When developing an alternative plan, in addition to leveraging and citing existing planning
documents and the elements listed in Chapter 4.6.2. the plan must:
• Demonstrate that the proposed project represents regional/community priority
implementation work (e.g., prescribed treatments for implementation in a Burned Area
Emergency Response (BAER) Report).
• Be limited to a sufficiently small geographic area so that the recommended management
strategies in the plan will fully address the water quality problems (or threats) caused by
the NPS pollution emergency or urgent NPS public health risk in that area.
• Identify the specific locations selected for implementation (describe and, if appropriate,
develop maps) and the specific BMPs identified or designed (describe how far along the
designs are (e.g., 60% design) and any permits needed/obtained).
3. When protecting priority healthy waters.
Proactive NPS management activities can play a critical role in maintaining healthy waters and
helping to ensure and maintain water quality restoration success. Where a watershed includes
both impaired and unimpaired waters, a WBP should be developed to address all actions
needed to maintain and restore water quality. In the following cases, alternative plans can
effectively guide Section 319-funded protection activities:
• In watersheds where a state has assessed waters that are nearly or fully attaining water
quality standards and where only protection actions are needed (i.e., measures to prevent
future degradation) to address documented water quality threat(s).
• In portions of a watershed (e.g., intact headwater areas) where only limited protection
actions are needed to address documented water quality threat(s) and help ensure
restoration activities are effective.
• In watersheds where water quality monitoring and assessment information is limited, but
watershed-scale assessments indicate that the watershed function and structure are
intact and can support healthy aquatic ecosystems (e.g., the EPA's healthy watersheds
integrated assessments).
4. When addressing an isolated, small-scale water quality problem resulting from one or a few
sources of pollution.
An alternative plan may be acceptable when the NPS problem and solution are extremely
limited in scope and scale, such that the water quality problem is caused by one or a very few
pollution sources (e.g., failing on-site septic systems). In such cases, the state must demonstrate
-------
(through upstream and downstream monitoring, watershed characterization studies, etc.) that
this impairment is isolated from other potential contributing causes/sources of pollution in the
watershed. Additionally, the state must provide assurance that the proposed watershed project
will significantly address the water quality problem within one grant period. Restoration efforts
that may take more than one grant period to address should be guided by nine-element WBPs.
In meeting these conditions, the state will ensure that multiple smaller problems are not dealt
with in a piecemeal fashion when they are part of a larger water quality problem involving
multiple pollution sources in the watershed.
5. When addressing only agricultural NPS sources in an NRCS NWQI watershed.
As noted above, NRCS requires that Watershed Assessments/Areawide Conservation
Assessments at the HUC-12 scale be developed before enrolling NWQI watersheds in the
"implementation" phase. If Section 319 watershed projects targeting agricultural sources and
pollutants (e.g., nutrients, sediment, pathogens, pesticides) are being contemplated, NRCS
Watershed Assessments and related Areawide Conservation Plans/Assessments, developed in
accordance with USDA guidance and with EPA review and approval, may be considered as
acceptable alternative plans for the purposes of Section 319 funding if the documents address
all of the criteria listed above in Chapter 4.6.2. States should consult with the EPA regional
coordinator to discuss the appropriateness of using these documents to address agricultural NPS
pollution sources.
6. When implementing an EPA-approved Tribal NPSMP plan.
As described above in Chapter 1, Tribes are not required to have EPA-approved NPS programs to
be eligible for state Section 319 subawards. There are currently 214 federally recognized Tribes
that have met the following CWA requirements and are eligible to receive Section 319 funding
from the EPA:
• Be federally recognized by the Secretary of the Interior
• Have an approved NPS assessment report in accordance with Section 319(a)
• Have an approved NPSMP in accordance with Section 319(b)
• Be approved for treatment in a similar manner as a state (TAS) in accordance with CWA
Section 518(c)
Beginning in Fiscal Year 2023,17 a current EPA-approved Tribal NPSMP plan can be considered an
acceptable alternative to a nine-element WBP. States may award CWA Section 319 watershed
project funds to Section 319-eligible Tribes to implement project(s) consistent with these plans.
In this scenario, Tribal NPSMP plans may be accepted as written and without the need to
address all nine elements outlined in Appendix B. States should contact their EPA regional Tribal
NPS coordinator with questions about Tribal NPSMP plans.
7. Other circumstances.
An alternative plan may be used in other situations where the EPA deems it appropriate. EPA
regional contacts may use discretion in consultation with the state and EPA headquarters to
make the case for situations not identified in these guidelines where an alternative plan would
be appropriate.
17 Continued Actions in FY23 to Increase Equity and Environmental Justice in the Nonpoint Source Program
-------
4.7 EPA's Role in Developing and Reviewing WBPs (Nine-Element and
Alternative)
Nine-element plans: EPA regions will annually review a sample of WBPs from each state in their region
and provide written recommendations to help ensure these plans satisfy the nine elements and lay a
good foundation to restore and/or protect waters while ensuring efficient and effective use of Section
319 funds. Each EPA regional office will have the discretion to determine the appropriate number of
plans to review each year. At a minimum, the EPA expects that a regional review of one WBP per state
per year will serve as a threshold and that the actual number will vary based on regional and state
experience and circumstances. EPA regions will select the plan(s) for review and conduct each review to
assess whether the WBP meets the nine elements outlined in Appendix B of these guidelines. Accepted
WBPs are those plans that are reviewed by EPA regions and determined to meet the nine elements. In
general, EPA regions have the discretion to determine when WBPs meet the nine key elements and thus
are acceptable for implementation with watershed project funding.
EPA regions are encouraged to review draft WBPs currently under development, particularly where
Section 319 funds support plan development. In those cases, the EPA and the state should coordinate
the EPA's review so that the subgrantee has ample time and resources to make any necessary revisions
before the subgrant closes. In cases when the EPA region selects a completed WBP to review, for which
the Section 319 subgrant may have already closed, any adjustments to the WBP based on EPA feedback
should occur concurrently with implementation. Revisions to the watershed plan should be task one in
the work plan prior to its implementation with additional Section 319 funds.
Alternative plans: Before a state can proceed with implementing an alternative plan, the EPA region
must review and approve the plan to ensure it meets the elements discussed above. However, if the EPA
region determines that a state has a complete and comprehensive understanding of the requirements
for developing a certain type of alternative plan, the region can waive review of that type of plan for
that state.
The EPA region should periodically evaluate alternative plans from the state for which they have
provided review flexibilities to ensure the state is still meeting expectations. If the state is developing an
alternative plan for a circumstance that is not included in that state's existing review flexibilities, the EPA
region will review and approve the plan.
Like nine-element plan development, alternative plan writers should engage with the EPA early in the
process and provide opportunities for draft review. The EPA is expected to conduct reviews in a timely
manner. However, in cases of an NPS pollution emergency or urgent NPS public health risk, the EPA will
expedite the review of an alternative plan. States should request the timeframe by which such a review
must be completed (e.g., "x" business days). The EPA regional office should prioritize accommodating
such a request so that public health and safety are not compromised.
-------
Chapter 5. Grant Award Mechanics
5.1 Introduction
CWA Section 319 grants must meet all applicable statutory, regulatory, and other requirements, such as
relevant EPA grant policies and guidance that include requirements for the use of EPA grant funds,
including ensuring Section 319 funds are used in a manner that is reasonable, necessary, and allocable
to the grant. Statutory laws are created and approved by the United States Congress and the President
and codified in the United States Code. Federal agencies write and publish regulations yearly in the Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) to set specific rules under particular statutes. Table 1 lists some of the
requirements for each of the three categories that pertain to Section 319(h) grants.18
Table 1. Primary Requirements Applicable to CWA Section 319(h) Grants3
Categories of Requirements Citations Relevant to Section 319(h) Grants
Statutes CWA sections 101, 205, 208, 303, 319, and 501
Regulations 2 CFR parts 184, 200 and 1500
40 CFR parts 7, 29, 33, 34, and 35
EPA Grant Guideline httpsi//www.epa.gov/nps/cwa-ss319-grant-current-guidance
a This table reflects primary requirements applicable to grants awarded from FY 2023 forward.19
State NPSMP managers should note the EPA's environmental program grant regulations at 40 CFR part 35.
Subpart A of these regulations contains sections 35.260-35.268, which address the purpose of NPS
management grants (40 CFR 35.260), the maximum federal share (40 CFR 30.265), the maintenance of
effort (MOE) requirement (40 CFR 35.266), and some of the award limitations contained in Section 319
(40 CFR 35.268).
5.2 Statutory and Regulatory Expectations
5.2.1 Obligate Funds Within One Year
Per Section 319(h)(6), states must obligate the funds within one year; any funds not obligated within this
timeframe shall be available to the EPA for granting to other states. The EPA has interpreted Section
319(h)(6) to provide that the funds must be obligated one year from the date of the grant award. For
example, grant funds awarded to a state on December 1, 2023, remain available for obligation until
December 1, 2024. This requirement is intended to apply to obligations for subawards or contracts and
not to internal, staff-related costs.
5.2.2 Nonfederal Share is 40% or Greater
The federal share may not exceed 60% of the NPSMP implementation cost, and nonfederal sources must
be provide the nonfederal share. The nonfederal share for the entire grant must be at least 40% (Section
319(h)(3) and 40 CFR 35.265). The nonfederal match does not need to be provided at the time of the
grant award, but the funds must be contributed as needed to meet the schedules established in the
18 For more information on statutes, regulations, and guidelines related to Section 319 grants, see Section 1.3 of
Applying for and Administering CWA Section 319 Grants: A Guide for State Nonpoint Source Agencies.
19 Ibid., 8
-------
work plan milestones and must occur during the grant period. EPA regions must verify that grantees
have satisfied the match requirements upon review and approval of the grantee's final federal financial
report.20
For Section 319 funds in Performance Partnership Grants (PPGs), the cost-share requirement (40 CFR
35.136) is either the amount of funding required to meet the Section 319 40% match requirement or
the amount of funding needed to meet the MOE requirement, whichever is greater. The nonfederal
share of costs must be provided from nonfederal sources (CWA Section 319(h)(3), 40 CFR 35.265, and
2 CFR 200.306(b)(5)). With the qualifications listed in 2 CFR 200.306, a matching or cost-sharing
requirement may be satisfied by any of the following:
• Allowable costs incurred by the grantee, subrecipient, or a cost-type contractor under the
assistance agreement. These include costs borne by nonfederal grants or by cash donations
from nonfederal third parties.
• The value of third-party, in-kind contributions (e.g., donated personnel time, supplies,
equipment, landowner project cost) applicable to the period to which the cost-sharing or
matching requirements apply.
• "Recycled" CWSRF dollars 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 CWSRF program to provide
loans that fund other water quality projects. These recycled funds are not treated as federal
funds for the purposes of a cost-share requirement or match; therefore, they are eligible to be
used as a match for Section 319 funds, provided that they, like any other Section 319 match
funds, are used to implement the approved Section 319 state NPSMP.
Consistent with 2. CFR 200.306, the following items may not be used as matching funds:
• Other federal funds, including in-kind services by staff, except where the federal statute
authorizing a program specifically provides that federal funds can be applied to the match or
cost sharing requirements of other federal programs.
• Unallowable costs for the project/program (e.g., lobbying).
5.2.3 Using Section 319 Funds for Demonstration Projects
Section 319(h)(7) provides that states may use Section 319 funds to provide financial assistance to
"persons" if the costs are related to implementing "demonstration projects." The provision means that
BMP or management measures may be funded in multiple locations. BMPs may need to be evaluated in
multiple locations to assess their potential utility in varied hydrogeological and sociological settings.
Moreover, projects occurring in multiple locations within a state provide opportunities for knowledge
transfer to others who may wish to use similar approaches. Watershed-scale demonstration projects
should be guided by comprehensive plans that identify appropriate BMPs to be implemented at
appropriate sites throughout the watershed.21 Where a person22 is the Section 319 subrecipient, the total
20 Reported using standard form 425.
21 See the EPA's Critical Source Area Identification and BMP Selection (2018)
22 The term "person" means an individual, corporation, partnership, association, state, municipality, commission,
or political subdivision of a state, or any interstate body (33 U.S.C. Section 1362(5)).
-------
cost for a demonstration project from all sources (Section 319 and other state, federal, or nonprofit funds)
may not exceed 100% of the demonstration project activities.
5.2.4 States Must Maintain Level of Effort
Section 319(h)(9) and 40 CFR 35.266 require that each year, any state applying for Section 319 grants
establish and maintain its aggregate annual level of state NPS pollution control expenditures for
improving water quality at the average level of such expenditures in fiscal years 1985 and 1986. This
level is referred to as the state's MOE requirement. The MOE is based on fiscal years 1985 and 1986
expenditures by the lead state agency or agencies responsible for the state's NPS pollution control
activities. Federal funds may not be included in calculating the MOE base level.
The calculation of expenditures is based on activities of the state's lead NPS agency or agencies
responsible for the state's NPS pollution control activities, not on related activities undertaken by other
state agencies whose primary mission(s) are not related to NPS control. For example, if the state water
quality agency and agricultural agency both have specific NPS water quality control programs, these
should be counted in the MOE. State soil conservation programs that have water quality improvement
or maintenance as a primary objective should also be included in a state's MOE.
The MOE base level or annual level cannot include the MOE or matching expenditures for other federal
programs, such as CWA sections 106, 205(j)(5), and 117. Determining whether the state expenditures
meet the MOE level for the purposes of awarding a Section 319 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 federal financial report at the end of the budget year.)
Note: As explained above, the MOE requirement in Section 319(h)(9) and 40 CFR 35.266 require a state
to reference expenditures from fiscal years 1985 and 1986. The EPA recognizes that this timeframe is
more than 35 years ago, which is beyond typical requirements for records retention and management.
The EPA has determined that the following documentation is sufficient to satisfy the MOE requirement
Section 319(h)(9):
• Where states have access to other documents that reference the amount of effort from 1985-
1986, they may reference that documented amount when making statements to the grant
project officer that the state satisfies the MOE.
• If a state cannot provide or does not have access to records documenting financial
commitments from 1985-1986, they may provide a statement or letter certifying that they
maintain, at a minimum, the same level of effort that the state had in the 1985-1986
timeframe. This letter should include a reasonable rationale for their estimate of the average
expenditure level in 1985-1986. The determination could use, but not be limited to, historical
documentation such as the earliest-available transmittal letter or official cover letter that may
offer some mention of the monetary amount.
5.2.5 Cap on Administrative Costs
Pursuant to Section 319(h)(12), administrative costs in the form of salaries, overhead, or certain indirect
costs for services provided and charged against activities and programs carried out with the grant shall
not exceed 10% of the total grant budget (EPA allocation plus match). The costs of implementing
enforcement and regulatory activities, education, training, technical assistance, demonstration projects,
-------
and technology transfer (including salaries, overhead, and certain indirect costs for services provided
related to implementation) are not subject to the 10% cap limitation.
Generally, activities that are required for states to develop, implement, and report on progress in their
NPSMPs do not count as administrative costs (e.g., work plan/application development, grant annual
reports). In many cases, work related to Grants Reporting and Tracking System (GRTS) activities (e.g.,
estimating and entering load reductions and programmatic information from a project) can be considered
a program activity and does not need to be counted toward this 10% cap on administrative costs.
5.2.6 Allocation of Funds
EPA uses an allocation formula to set states' funding for Section 319 grants. The allocation percentages
in Appendix C determine the amount of funding to be awarded to each state. The factors and weights
used in the formula have remained the same since the Section 319 grant program began. Each year,
after accounting for Tribal Section 319 program funds, the Congressional appropriation for Section 319
will be multiplied by the applicable percentage presented in Appendix Cto determine each state's
allocation for that year. Upon receiving the annual Congressional Section 319 appropriation and final
Agency Operating Plan, EPA headquarters will notify the EPA regional offices of each state's allocation,
and the regions will notify the states. In advance of the final appropriation, the EPA regions and states
will begin grant negotiations based on the previous year's award amount or the president's budget,
whichever is higher, as described in Grants Policy Issuance (GPI) 12-06, Timely Obligation, Award, and
Expenditure of EPA Grant Funds.
5.3 Section 319 Grant Work Plan Requirements
Section 319(h)(1) and 40 CFR 35.260(b) provide that Section 319 grants are to assist the states in
implementing state NPSMPs. Under Section 319 (h)(2), an application for a grant in any fiscal year shall
contain information such as the identification and description of BMPs and the measures that the state
proposes to assist, encourage, or require in such a year. The work plan is part of the grant application
and is negotiated between the grant applicant and the EPA project officer and managers. State grant
work plans must comply with all applicable federal regulations and EPA orders and guidelines. Work
plans should be consistent with EPA policies and guidance, which are prepared to support effective state
programs. A state work plan reflects consideration of factors such as goals, objectives, and priorities
proposed by the applicant and other jointly identified needs or priorities. It must identify priority
activities from the NPSMP for funding in the next fiscal year and is the basis for management and
evaluation of performance under the grant.
Each state Section 319(h) grant application package must include the appropriate application forms,
work plan, and project costs (40 CFR 35.104, 2 CFR 200 and 1500). The term "work plan" is used in 40
CFR 35.107 and 35.268(d)(5) to describe both the overall technical description to be funded in the
annual grant application and the individual work plan component descriptions. For the purpose of these
guidelines, a "work plan" refers to the annual grant application, and the individual work plan
components contained in the overall grant application package will be referred to as "projects." Each
funded program activity or watershed project in the state grant work plan must lead to the
accomplishment of management program objectives identified in the EPA-accepted state NPSMP. State
-------
grant work plans must link the funded activities or projects to the relevant element(s) of the state
NPSMP.23
For each of the proposed Section 319-funded activities, the state grant work plan should include a brief
and concise summary explaining the state's strategy for using Section 319 funds for the grant awarded.
Each project summary should include the following:
• Identification of the problems, the goals (including water quality targets and objectives) and the
anticipated tasks designed to address the problems.
• The lead implementing agency and other agencies that will be authorized to expend project
funds.
• The types of measures or BMPs that will be implemented and the projected implementation
schedule.
• Well-defined outcomes and outputs to the maximum extent practicable, including target dates
for accomplishing interim outputs. The outcome of any work plan activity should be the long-
term goal to be accomplished, such as achieving water quality standards. Outputs are the
quantifiable activities undertaken to reach each outcome, such as the load reductions
contributing to a delisting.
• The outcomes supported by the tasks and the indicators and/or other performance measures
that will be used to evaluate success.
Outputs for all activities, including those funded through the NPS program funds, should be linked to
water quality outcomes.24 It is not sufficient to describe the funding of state or local staff positions to
implement the state NPSMP. Staff time should be described in terms of support for specific outputs and
outcomes geared toward water quality results. Activities funded with Section 319 project funds should
be clearly identified as such in the state work plan. The work plan synopsis should provide references to
locate the WBP or acceptable alternative plan for the project, including online sources where available.
States that include all or a portion of their Section 319 funds in a PPG should note that their work plan is
required by regulation to describe each significant category of NPS activity to be addressed and the state
work plan outcomes and outputs to be produced for each category (see 40 CFR 35.268(d)(4)).
If a project is located within a municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4) permitted area or overlaps
an MS4-permitted area due to the scope of the project (e.g., a watershed-wide or regional educational
effort), a state should assess, document, and confirm with the EPA region that the proposed work does
not implement a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirement(s) or
serve to provide regulatory credit for meeting a performance requirement(s) in the permit. The state
23 If a state proposes a work plan that is significantly different from the goals and objectives, priorities, or core
performance measures for NPS activities in the National NPS Program Guidance, the EPA regional administrator
(but, more typically, the EPA regional water division director through redelegation) must consult with the national
NPS Program manager before agreeing to the work plan.
24 The EPA's Order Environmental Results under EPA Assistance Agreements defines outputs and outcomes. The
term "outputs" means an environmental activity, effort, and/or associated work product related to an
environmental goal or objective that will be produced or provided over a period of time or by a specified date. The
term "outcome" means the result, effect, or consequence that will occur from carrying out an environmental
program or activity related to an environmental or programmatic goal or objective.
-------
should include a declarative statement in the work plan that the project being funded with Section 319
funds is not required by the terms of the NPDES permit and/or will not be credited towards meeting any
permit terms or conditions.
A Section 319-funded project may occur on a site listed on the National Priorities List or otherwise
subject to a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
remedial, removal, or Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) cleanup action, provided that the
CERCLA or RCRA program has determined no further remedial or corrective action is necessary at this
time and confirmed the Section 319 work does not jeopardize or alter the protection of the site remedy.
EPA regions must ensure state grant work plans negotiated under Section 319 follow all relevant EPA
policies, including GPI 16-01, EPA Subaward Policy for EPA Assistance Agreement Recipients; GPI 11-03,
State Grant Workplans and Progress Reports; and GPI 12-06, Timely Obligation, Award and Expenditure
of EPA Grant Funds. For additional information about funding balance and the eligible use of funds in
watershed projects, please see Chapters 6 and 7.
5.4 Process and Schedule for Awarding Section 319 Grants
5.4.1 Grant process overview
Although this document is intended for state and territory NPS agencies, it is important to understand
the major roles that EPA and subrecipients play in the grant process. Table 2 illustrates the "big picture"
of the Section 319(h) grant process by showing the interrelationship of the roles of EPA, the state NPS
agency, and the subrecipients.
5.4.2 State Project Solicitation and Selection
States are strongly encouraged to begin their internal project development and project solicitation
processes (such as identifying priority areas for funding and request for proposals (RFPs)) as early as
possible to ensure that project proposals are secured in advance of, or as early as possible in, the federal
fiscal year of the Section 319 grant award. States should reference their approved state NPSMPs (e.g., in
an RFP) so project sponsors focus on activities consistent with current state NPSMPs. States are
encouraged, where feasible, to discuss proposed projects with EPA regions before submitting the draft
work plan to EPA so that the subsequent submission can be reviewed and approved expediently. EPA
encourages states to submit subrecipient project proposals to EPA as soon as possible, especially if they
believe complex issues 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 the EPA. The
EPA's approval of a state's Section 319 work plans indicates the approval of projects for funding.
Additionally, states must request prior approval from EPA for any additional projects not described in
the work plan and funded in the approved award (2 CFR 200.308).
EPA encourages states with project solicitation phases to review and make appropriate adjustments to
their solicitation processes and project selection criteria as necessary to ensure that criteria reflect
priorities in their NPSMPs and the federal requirements (e.g., regulatory, programmatic). Project
selection criteria are critical to ensuring the selection of well-designed projects implemented by project
proponents with the capacity to deliver water quality improvements. States' subgrants must comply
with EPA's GPI 16-01: EPA Suba ward Policy for EPA Assistance Agreement Recipients.
-------
Table 2. Overview of EPA's Grant Award, Implementation, and Review Process
EPA
State NPS Agency
Subrecipients
4->
HQ announces Section
c
0)
E
Q.
"S -i
319 grant allocations
Regions await state
grant application
<->
Develops grant WPs
<->
Have access to funds via
a state RFPa or other
to O
« £
i- to
K
Regions and state
negotiate to finalize
WPs
<->
Submit final WP to EPA
region
<->
procurement process for
implementing a
regulatory NPS program
o
Region approves WPs
Awards Section 319
->
Uses Section 319 fund to
<->
State reviews and ranks
T3
U
grants funds to state
implement NPSMP and
subaward proposals for
ro
s
approved WP
Section 319 funds
<
4-»
Distributes funds to
->
Use Section 319 funds to
c
ro
subrecipients in
implement NPS projects
accordance with state
and federal requirements
c
Imports Section 319
<->
Enter required NPS
<->
May enter or provide
grant fund information
information into GRTS
data for states to enter
o
into GRTS
into GRTS
a.
ai
Reviews progress
<-
Submits periodic
<-
Submit progress and
¦o
reports and
progress reports and
financial reports to state
CO
g
(0
program/grant
interim FSR to EPA
agency
progress
(/)
o
Determines
<-
Submits annual report on
Q-
satisfactory progress
NPSMP
Grant
Closeout
Closes out state
grant
<-
Submits final FSR and
final report and closes
out grants
<-
Submit final project
and financial report
and close out
contract/grant
Notes:
The arrows indicate the typical flow direction of the grant process across the EPA, the state, and subrecipients.
FSR = financial status report; GRTS = Grants Reporting and Tracking System; HQ= EPA headquarters; NPS = nonpoint source;
NPSMP = nonpoint source management program; RFP = request for proposal; WP = work plan
a RFP process may occur before or after initial grant negotiations and/or award.
-------
5.4.3 Process for Awarding Section 319 Grants
EPA recognizes that the Section 319 grant award process and timeline may vary from state to state
(e.g., due to differing fiscal years and state RFP processes) and is presenting this process to provide a
general outline of the steps to be followed without dictating a uniform schedule for state submissions.
EPA regions should review and comply with GPI 12-06, Timely Obligation, Award, and Expenditure of
EPA Grant Funds, and GPI 11-01, Managing Unliquidated Obligations and Ensuring Progress under EPA
Assistance Agreements, as amended on November 12, 2020. Among other provisions, these policies
limit continuing state and Tribal environmental programs (40 CFR part 35 subparts A and B) grants,
including Section 319, to five-year project periods, and they require EPA regional program offices to
negotiate a target outlay strategy with their states to ensure the timely drawdown of federal funds.
Before beginning the award process, EPA regions will discuss a submittal/negotiation schedule with each
state to ensure the timely award of the Section 319 grant. If any national annual guidance is needed,
EPA headquarters will strive to issue such guidance as early as possible in the preceding fiscal year. The
award process is summarized in the following six steps.
Step 1: States begin the subgrantee proposal processes, if applicable.
States should expeditiously implement their processes to develop or solicit subgrantee proposals (e.g.,
the RFP process used by many states to solicit grant projects). States are encouraged to solicit input
from EPA regions on draft state RFPs. They should also develop expeditious processes to review
subgrant project proposals and select the top subgrant projects for inclusion in their draft work plan.
States should provide clear written guidance to all subgrant project applicants to ensure they are aware
of federal requirements for project eligibility, state NPSMP priorities, and state project selection criteria.
EPA regional involvement in the state subgrant process will follow the GPI 16-01, EPA Subaward Policy
for EPA Assistance Agreement Recipients.
Step 2: States submit draft work plans and budgets to their EPA regional office.25
Each state will submit a draft work plan and budget to EPA regional program staff. Each EPA region will
work closely with the state to provide input as the state develops the grant work plan. EPA regions must
be able to determine from the draft work plan that they conform to all applicable legal requirements of
Section 319, EPA's general grant regulations in 2 CFR Parts 20026 and 1500. 40 CFR Parts Z, 29, 33, 34,
and 35); and all other applicable EPA orders and policies including these guidelines. The EPA region will
work with the state to ensure that its work plan:
1. Is designed to help achieve the goals and objectives contained in these guidelines and in the
state's NPSMP and to help assess the state's success in meeting these goals.
2. Has programmatic, technical, and/or scientific merit.
3. Includes costs that are eligible, reasonable, necessary, allowable, and consistent with the grant,
including costs for state and local staff.
25 For states that include their Section 319 funds in a PPG once this work plan is approved in Step 3, that work plan
is included in the PPG consolidated work plan 40 CFR 35.137(a)(3).
26 Note that, as explained in 2 CFR 200.104, 2 CFR part 200 supersedes the requirements of certain Office of
Management and Budget Circulars, including A-21, A-87, A-89, A-102, A-110, A-122, A-133, and the Sections of
A-50 related to audits under subpart F of 2 CFR part 200.
-------
4. Is well-coordinated with other state and federal programs.
5. Identifies and resolves gaps between program objectives and planned activities.
6. Identifies the specific outcomes, outputs, and other results (e.g., water quality restoration
targets) linked to the funding and includes target dates and milestones for achieving them.
7. Facilitates tracking progress toward national goals in reducing NPS pollutant loads and achieving
and maintaining water quality standards.
Step 3: EPA regions conduct reviews of state draft work plans and budgets and provide comments to
the state.
EPA regional staff will review each state's draft work plan and budgets, coordinate with other programs
as appropriate (e.g., Safe Drinking Water Act, TMDL), and communicate with the state to resolve any
technical, administrative, or eligibility issues. EPA regions will strive to conduct the reviews and provide
feedback to states in a reasonable timeframe. This feedback should focus on consistency with the
factors described in Step 2 above. EPA regions may also provide technical comments to the state on how
proposed projects or programs could be clarified, improved, or otherwise modified to result in a better
project or program.
Step 4: States submit final work plans and budgets and grant applications via Grants.gov.
States should contact EPA to discuss any questions and the intended responses to EPA comments on the
draft work plan; the final work plan must address all comments. After finalizing the work plans based on
EPA feedback, states are encouraged to submit final work plans/grant applications via Grants.gov,
generally at least 60 days before the proposed funding period begins (40 CFR 35.105).
Step 5: EPA regions award grants to the state.
The grant award is contingent upon the EPA region determining in writing that the state has made
"satisfactory progress" in the preceding fiscal year in meeting the schedule and milestones specified in
the state NPSMP (see Chapter 9.2).
Each EPA region will review and approve the final state grant work plan and application (see
40 CFR 35.111). If a state work plan meets all the requirements described under steps 2 and 3 above,
the EPA region will conduct the final reviews of a completed state work plan and application and
approve both within 60 days of receipt (see 40 CFR 35.110). Where issues remain unresolved, the EPA
region and/or the state will elevate discussions to more senior management levels to quickly achieve
resolution. The EPA region will strive to inform a state within 30 days of receipt of the state's grant
application if the state's application is not complete. If the funds allocated to a state cannot be fully
awarded to that state, the EPA may reallocate the funds to another state, eligible territory, or Tribe. EPA
may also condition a grant so that funding may only be drawn down to a specified level until certain
conditions are met. These conditions will be included in the terms and conditions of the grant (see
Appendix E).
Step 6: States obligate funds as expeditiously as possible.
States will obligate the awarded funds as quickly as possible (see Chapter 5.2.1) and conduct funded
activities according to the schedules in the approved work plan. EPA regions should include in each grant
a condition requiring the grant recipient to award all proposed subgrants, contracts, and interagency
-------
agreements no later than one year after the grant award.27 Note that the term "obligate" does not
mean to "expend." The term "financial obligations" (2 CFR 200.1) means orders placed for property and
services, contracts and subawards made, and similar transactions that require payment.
EPA recognizes that each state has a different process, often governed or influenced by state laws,
regulations, or control mechanisms, which results in varying time periods for subgrants and contracts to
implement projects. States should make every effort, including modifying state procedures, if
appropriate, to ensure the funds are made available to project implementers as soon as possible after
the grant is awarded to the state.
5.5 State Expenditure of Awarded Funds
Funds appropriated by Congress should be efficiently and effectively used for their intended purpose
and should not remain unused for significant amounts of time. States must expend awarded funds as
rapidly as practicable based on the approved work plan and the funds outlay strategy negotiated by the
EPA region and the state. To increase the rate of expenditure of awarded funds for multiyear watershed
project subgrants, a state's preferred approach might be to award the funds gradually over the years
rather than all at once. EPA will continue to work with the states to streamline the Section 319 grant
award process, facilitate best practices to ensure the expenditure rate of Section 319 funds is
appropriate and commensurate with the outlay strategy and approved work plan negotiated with the
state, and ensure that all funds awarded to the state are drawn down within the maximum five-year
project period in accordance with EPA's Amended GPI 11-01, Managing Unliquidated Obligations and
Ensuring Progress under EPA Assistance Agreements28 (also see Section 319 Grants Streamlining Policy
and Program Expectations for Expenditure of Funds).
5.6 Grant Award Approaches
5.6.1 Performance Partnership Grants
PPGs are grant delivery tools that allow states and Tribes to combine eligible State and Tribal Assistance
Grant Program grants, including Section 319 grants, into one multi-program grant. PPGs typically reduce
administrative costs by streamlining paperwork and accounting procedures, providing flexibility to direct
resources toward the highest-priority environmental problems, and supporting cross-media approaches
or initiatives. Administrative benefits typically include a consolidated grant work plan, budget,
performance progress report, and federal financial report. Additionally, the PPG nonfederal cost share is
a composite of the cost shares for each of the grants in the PPG and can be met using any combination
of the appropriate funds the state has available. For more information on PPGs, see the Best Practices
Guide for Performance Partnerships with States.
27 This grant condition and others, including the "sufficient progress/satisfactory progress" term and condition to
comply with GPI 11-01 and GPI 12-06, are included in the EPA's nationally consistent Section 319 grant terms and
conditions list for FY 2023 and beyond (see Appendix E).
28 Per Section 15 of Amended Grants Policy Issuance (GPI) 11-01, Managing Unliquidated Obligations and Ensuring
Progress under EPA Assistance Agreements, waivers to this policy may be approved by the EPA.
-------
Section 319 funds are eligible for inclusion in a PPG. States wishing to include the Section 319 grant in a
PPG should use these guidelines to develop their NPS work plans. Many states use a Performance
Partnership Agreement (PPA), or portions of the PPA, as the PPG work plan. All state grant work plans
must meet the requirements of 40 CFR 35.107(b), including the portions of a PPA that serve as a grant
work plan. In addition, the portions of the PPA that are used as the Section 319 work plan must be
clearly identified and distinguished from other portions of the PPA and meet the requirements in
40 CFR 35.107(b) (see 40 CFR 35.107(c)). PPG work plans also are required by 40 CFR 35.107(b) to
specify work plan components to be funded under the PPG and the related NPS activity category and
the work plan commitments to be produced for each category (see 40 CFR 35.268(d)(4)).
States with Section 319 funding included in PPGs are subject to the same program reporting, evaluation,
and other accountability requirements contained in EPA's grants regulations. As with any other EPA
grant, states are held accountable for achieving the outcomes and outputs identified in PPG work plans.
States are required to submit work plans and annual reports, and they must include project data
through GRTS at a level of detail to ensure that EPA regions can measure and track states' outcomes and
outputs. To meet the basic national NPS Program requirements under these guidelines, PPG states will
be required to identify work plan outcomes and outputs as part of an NPSMP or watershed project-
funded work (both federal share and nonfederal share) and to provide other identifiers, such as whether
a project is focused on restoration or protection. While not required, states with Section 319 funding
included in PPGs are strongly encouraged to track project-specific financial information (e.g., via GRTS).
5.6.2 Multiyear Work Plans
EPA encourages states to develop multiyear work plans for Section 319 grants when the plans can
improve efficiency in grants management or program implementation. For example, a state may wish to
present a three-year work plan that would guide the state's grant activities for the next three years.
When approved by the EPA, this work plan would not need 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 in Chapter 5.3 above, the work plan should include the interim milestones and
final dates for completing activities. The interim milestones should be sufficiently frequent to ensure
timely performance throughout the project period, allowing the state to identify problems and correct
them expeditiously.
For multiyear awards, states should apply for the total amount of funds expected for the period covered
by the award and include any required match in the application; the state work plan should cover the
same time period. The EPA will fund the application incrementally as funds become available. Note that
because a given project period for Section 319 grants is not to exceed five years, states will have less
time to spend Section 319 funds in the later years of multiyear grants. For example, if a state is awarded
a five-year grant in FY 2023 that will be incrementally funded, the state will have a maximum of five
years to expend FY 2023 funds, four years to expend FY 2024 funds, and so on. In other words, states
should realistically estimate how long they and any subgrantees will need to spend a given year's
funding and consider their multiyear work plans accordingly.
The multiyear planning approach can reduce paperwork and improve long-term planning and
implementation with respect to both programmatic activities and specific watershed projects. States
and the EPA will, however, retain the option of negotiating modifications to multiyear work plans on an
annual basis.
-------
5.6.3 Territories
Section 319 funds for American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and
the U.S. Virgin Islands may be managed through the Environmental Protection Consolidated Grants as
provided by Section 501 of the Omnibus Territory Act of 1977, 48 U.S.C. Section 1469a. This
consolidated program support grant is an alternative assistance delivery mechanism that allows an
agency eligible for assistance for two or more pollution control programs to consolidate its assistance
requests into a single application and receive a single consolidated award (www.sam.gov; assistance
listing number: 66.600).29 Territories' NPSMP staff should work closely with their assigned Section 319
project officer and the project officer administering the full Consolidated Grant.
29 For details on consolidated grants to the Virgin Islands (EPA Region 2) or American Samoa, the Commonwealth
of Northern Marianas Islands, and Guam (EPA Region 9), contact the appropriate EPA regional NPS coordinator.
-------
Chapter 6. Funding Use
6.1 Activities Eligible for Funding Under CWA Section 319
Approved state NPSMP plans provide the framework for determining what activities are eligible for
funding under Section 319(h). The EPA expects each state to use Section 319 funds to restore and
protect the priority waterbody types for the state, including all types of surface water and
groundwater30 (if applicable), as identified in the state's NPSMP. Including groundwater and lake
protection activities in a state's overall NPSMP maximizes the state's flexibility to address all causes and
effects of NPS pollution.
States must demonstrate that they maintain an appropriate balance between implementing activities
supported by Section 319 funds and other important activities, such as developing WBPs/TMDLs and
conducting other planning, assessment, and NPSMP efforts. These guidelines emphasize the use of
Section 319 funds for implementing WBPs to restore impaired waters, and they require states to set
aside at least 50% of the Section 319 funds for watershed projects that implement WBPs. This set-aside
is referred to as watershed project funding. States may use the remaining Section 319 funds, referred to
as NPS program funds, for the full range of activities that support the goals of the state NPSMP.
Section 319 funding cannot be used to support activities associated with implementing NPDES permit
requirements because these requirements are considered point source controls. Please see Chapter 7.1
for more details.
6.1.1 Tracking Section 319 Funds to Balance Implementation and Program
Management
EPA requires that Section 319 grantees document in GRTS that the 50% minimum watershed project
funding requirement is being achieved. Additional information provided below will help staff correctly
categorize the funds in GRTS for each type in specific situations. More information on the reporting and
tracking requirements can be found in Chapter 8.
6.2 NPS Program Funds
NPS program funds comprise up to 50% of the total state Section 319 grant and may be used for a range
of activities that support the goals of the state's approved NPSMP plan within the parameters provided
by these guidelines and other applicable statutory, regulatory, and administrative criteria. As with
watershed project funds, states may use NPS program funds to support eligible NPS activities at the
state level or through Section 319 subawards and state contracts.
30 The EPA's policy is to award all Section 319 grants under Section 319(h) instead of awarding separate grants
under Section 319(i) or Section 314 to provide better integration, flexibility, and efficiency.
-------
6.2.1 Program Management Activities
The following program management activities are generally supported with NPS program funds:
• NPS state programs, including, as appropriate, nonregulatory or regulatory31 programs for
enforcement, technical assistance, financial assistance, education, training, technology transfer,
and demonstration projects to achieve implementation of BMPs and water quality goals.
• Managing other statewide NPS efforts (e.g., NPSMP coordination and reporting, managing
subgrantee work plans, progress reports, and project deliverables).
• Performing activities such as statewide or regional outreach or education.
• Conducting activities related to data reporting, including GRTS and Water Quality Exchange
(WQX) data entry.
6.2.2 Plan Development Activities
The following plan development activities are considered eligible for program funding:
• Developing WBPs. If a WBP being developed includes identified disadvantaged communities or
information on climate preparedness (see Chapter 6.3.1 for additional details), then the
planning activities can be considered either program or project funding.
• Protecting healthy waters. States can use Section 319 program funds for planning activities that
support the protection of healthy waters, including healthy watersheds assessments and
protection plans,32 source water protection activities, and efforts to leverage other funding
sources to protect watersheds.
Conducting TMDL development activities. As discussed in Chapter 4.5.1 of these guidelines, states
benefit from integrating TMDL and WBP development priorities because they can address the common
elements required in these planning documents while working towards a holistic water quality
management approach. States can use Section 319 program funds to develop NPS-only and mixed-
source TMDLs. The EPA strongly encourages states to prioritize Section 319-funded TMDL development
in NPS priority watersheds (as identified in the state's NPSMP plan), where local groups are poised to
plan and implement management strategies sufficient to achieve the TMDL load reductions in the near
future. The state must include the following information about the load allocations specified in the
TMDL:
(1) the total existing NPS loads and the total NPS load reductions necessary to meet water quality
standards, by source type and critical source area;
(2) the causes and sources of NPS pollution that will be addressed to achieve the load reductions
specified in the TMDL (e.g., acres of various row crops, the number and size of animal feedlots, acres
and density of residential areas); and
(3) an analysis of the NPS management measures, by source type, that are expected to be implemented
to achieve the necessary load reductions while recognizing that adaptive management might be
31 For states that have a regulatory NPS program, see also Chapter 6.5.
32 For example, under the EPA's 2022-2032 Vision for the CWA Section 303(d) Program and associated metrics,
states, territories, and authorized Tribes may develop "Protection Plans." See the EPA's 2024 Integrated Reporting
Memorandum.
-------
necessary during implementation.33 Because submission of this additional information is a Section 319
NPSMP requirement, EPA regional NPSMP staff might review it for adequacy as part of the grant
oversight process. This review would be separate from the EPA regional staffs review of the TMDLs
submitted by states pursuant to CWA Section 303(d) and the EPA's TMDL regulations at 40 CFR 130.7.
6.3 Watershed Project Funds
States must use at least 50% of the Section 319 grant on activities necessary to implement WBPs or
acceptable alternative plans. Under these guidelines, the following activities are considered eligible for
watershed project funds.
6.3.1 Implementing a Watershed-Based Plan
Implementing a WBP or alternative plan (consistent with Chapter 4) should be the most common use of
watershed project funds.
EPA regions may allow states to use a very limited amount of watershed project funds to support minor
updates to existing WBPs where technical analysis revisions are needed (e.g., updates to watershed
modeling to account for land use changes, natural hazard impacts, or revised load reductions). In these
instances, watershed project funds may not be used to conduct other planning work related to the WBP,
including more general plan updates, soliciting public comments, etc. These projects may also include
implementing community demonstration projects to address known sources of NPS impairment. With
regional approval, a project could include both Section 319 project funds and program funds if the
project includes both the development and the initial implementation of a WBP or acceptable
alternative plan.
The EPA encourages grantees to invest in projects that build community capacity for NPS work, such as
supporting local watershed coordinators and leveraging community resources (e.g., local minority-
serving institutions, community organizations, and businesses).
If the project is identified as benefitting a disadvantaged community, then, with EPA regional approval,
all funds, including those for planning activities, can be project funds. Project funds can also be used for
education and outreach activities if they support a specific Section 319 project or are identified in a WBP
to encourage landowners' implementation of certain BMPs to improve water quality within a
watershed.
6.3.2 State Staff Activities
States may use watershed project funds to support all eligible activities that implement a WBP or
acceptable alternative plan (including other items mentioned elsewhere in Chapter 6.3). Eligible
activities also include staff for time spent directly implementing a WBP or acceptable alternative plan.
As all activities are ultimately contingent on the EPA's approval of the state's Section 319 grant work
plan, the EPA requires that work plans clearly describe all the proposed staff activities that will be
supported with Section 319 funds, including how the staff supported by watershed project funds will
directly implement a WBP or acceptable alternative plan.
33 For additional context, please see the Denise Keener Memo, 2012.
-------
Watershed project funds may be used for state staff time spent providing technical assistance for
prioritizing and implementing BMPs, including activities such as:
• Implementing a local cost-share program to fund BMPs in critical areas described in the WBP or
acceptable alternative plan.
• Providing one-on-one technical assistance to confirm landowner participation in a watershed
project(s) and to determine which suite of BMPs are most appropriate to achieve water quality
targets articulated in a WBP or acceptable alternative plan.
• Providing technical expertise with siting and designing BMPs.
• Tracking implementation efforts in the watershed to evaluate progress towards the water
quality targets in the WBP or acceptable alternative plan.
In addition, watershed project funds may be used for state staff time spent implementing watershed
restoration and/or protection projects through activities such as:
• Providing coordination support for groups that are implementing a WBP or EPA-approved
alternative plan.
• Acting to leverage state, private, and non-CWA Section 319 federal funds to implement a WBP
or EPA-approved alternative.
• Providing technical assistance to support the implementation of a watershed restoration or
watershed protection project.
• Supporting watershed plan development and capacity building in disadvantaged communities.
6.3.3 Coordinating a Watershed Financing Partnership
To incentivize greater use of CWSRF to support the implementation of WBPs, funding to create or support
watershed financing partnerships is an eligible use of watershed project funds, so long as there is a
reasonable expectation that any such partnership will begin to implement a WBP or EPA-approved
alternative within three years of the use of the Section 319 grant funds. Other funding sources, such as
USDA EQIP funding and FEMA BRIC grants, may also support these types of partnerships.
6.4 NPS Program and Watershed Project Funds for Monitoring
Activities
States may choose to use Section 319 grant funds to support monitoring activities as a part of their
NPSMP.
Activities considered eligible for program funds include:
• Identifying nonpoint sources of pollution.
• Supporting the development of a WBP or acceptable alternative plan or an NPS or mixed-source
TMDL.
• Evaluating activities to protect or identify healthy waters.
• Using funds to monitor water quality in NWQI planning and implementation waters, including, if
necessary, cases where a WBP has not been developed, can be considered for both NPS
program and watershed project funding.
-------
Activities considered eligible for project funds include:
• Conducting monitoring to assess the effectiveness of BMP implementation to improve water
quality (e.g., pollutant loading trend analysis) as part of the implementation of a completed
WBP or acceptable alternative plan, regardless of the entity conducting this monitoring.
• Supporting monitoring efforts that are included in the EPA's National NPS Long-term Monitoring
Program. While the program is not currently active, the EPA plans to revitalize the effort in the
near future to help evaluate the effectiveness of NPS BMPs and improve the understanding of
how changing climate conditions impact the effectiveness of these practices.
Both the NPS program and watershed project funding may be used to monitor water quality results in
NWQI watersheds. This may occur in waters where an NRCS-approved watershed assessment is being
implemented, even if a separate WBP has not been developed.
6.5 NPS Program and Watershed Project Funds for State NPS
Regulatory Programs
Some states have chosen to adopt NPS regulatory programs. State NPS regulatory programs, pursuant
to Section 319(b), require that numerous staff take required training, process permit applications,
conduct inspections, and develop and implement the program, including addressing citizen's complaints,
issuing notices of violation or administrative orders, and following through with those orders.
During site visits, inspectors should be equipped to provide technical assistance for installing the most
appropriate BMPs that should be used for particular site conditions and provide guidance to ensure
successful implementation. Because implementing a state NPS enforcement program involves numerous
staff tasks and BMP implementation, the use of both project and program funds is allowed. Regulatory
programs should be entered as projects in GRTS, with Section 319 funds supporting the work identified,
the related load reductions reported yearly, and the program progress reports attached.
Activities considered to be eligible for program funds include:
• Developing NPS regulatory guidance materials, inspection manuals, and BMP handbooks
• Supporting staff who review and process applications, enroll permittees into the program, and
track the issuance and compliance of individual permits
• Training inspectors
Activities considered to be eligible for project funds include:
• Responding to citizen complaints and following up on documenting complaints, violations,
orders, etc.
• Conducting preliminary site visits and inspections and preparing reports
• Developing interim reports to document project implementation and issues
• Inspecting the completed project and developing a final report to document the final project
status/end date
• Calculating mitigated load reductions (where appropriate)
• Carrying out enforcement-related activity (where appropriate)
• Implementing WBP activities or enforcement-related BMPs
-------
6.6 Exemption from 50% Watershed Project Funding Requirement for
Substantial State Fund Leveraging
These guidelines reaffirm that a 40% nonfederal match is required for each CWA Section 319 grant, and
50% of each state Section 319 grant must be devoted to watershed project activities for implementing
state NPSMPs. To encourage states to leverage additional state or local funding sources or recycled
CWSRF funds, these guidelines provide an exemption to the 50% watershed project funding allocation
requirement for states that invest substantial state and/or local funding towards NPS watershed project
implementation (as defined by these guidelines). Most states implementing their NPSMPs routinely
engage a wide array of state programs, federal programs, and local stakeholders to leverage staff time
and funds to address NPS pollution problems, a key component of success stories.
To qualify for the exemption to the 50% watershed project funding allocation requirement, states must
demonstrate that the additional state and local funding will double the investment in on-the-ground
watershed projects. In other words, the state must demonstrate that they have leveraged additional
funding for watershed projects at a 2-to-l ratio relative to the Section 319 grant allocation that would
have otherwise been directed to fulfill the 50% watershed project requirement. For example, if the
amount of the 50% for watershed project funds federal allocation is $1.5 million, and the state wants to
use the entire allocation amount for NPS program work, then the additional state-leverage nonfederal
match requirement would be at least $3 million. If a state wants to use $750,000 of the $1.5 million
(project funds) for NPS program work, then the additional state-leverage nonfederal match requirement
would be $1.5 million.
If a state qualifies for this exemption, the federal watershed project funds allocated to the state may be
used for the full range of activities to implement approved state NPSMP plans, subject to these guidelines.
Consistent with the greater emphasis in these guidelines on watershed implementation, the EPA wants to
ensure that this exemption results in more, not less, on-the-ground implementation. If local funds are used
to meet this exemption, the state must have a mechanism in place to ensure that the projects will meet
the goals of the watershed project funding requirement and that the projects will be completed.
As expected with Section 319-funded projects, states must include all the state or locally funded
projects used to meet this exemption in the annual Section 319 grant work plans. Additionally, all state
or locally funded projects used to meet this exemption must be reported in the EPA's GRTS database in
the same manner as Section 319-funded projects and all nationally mandated elements are required.
No federal funds may be counted toward this leveraging exemption. However, "recycled" CWSRF funds
may be used after they have been loaned and paid back to the state. (Note that CWSRF funds can only
be used for CWSRF-eligible activities.) Other federal funding for NPS projects, such as USDA's Farm Bill
resources, may not be used to meet this exemption. Nonfederal funds used to meet the required 40%
match for the Section 319 grant award may not be used to meet this exemption.
-------
Chapter 7. General Eligibilities, Requirements, and
Limitations
7.1 Assessing Project Eligibility and Limitations Related to NPDES
Permits
Conducting a review of projects identified within the state work plan is an important part of
implementing a state NPSMP. Reviewing projects is key to assuring, among other aspects, that the
projects are eligible (the project meets the requirements of the statute, regulations, and these and
other programmatic guidelines) and that the technical merit and costs proposed in the plan are eligible,
reasonable, necessary, and allowable (excerpt Chapter 5.4.3, Step 2).
In general, CWA Section 319 funding cannot be used to support activities required to meet NPDES
permit requirements. The following subsections are intended to explain the eligibility or limitations of
four common project scenarios and parameters and to help states and EPA regions during the project
development and review processes.
7.1.1 Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity for NPS Projects
During the construction phase of NPS projects, if one or more acres of land will be disturbed (including
projects that disturb less than one acre but are part of a common plan of development or sale that will
ultimately disturb one or more acres), an NPDES permit will be required for the related stormwater
discharges. Section 319 funding can be used to implement and comply with NPDES construction
stormwater permits for the construction phase of an NPS project. For example, Section 319 funds may
be used for structural controls (like runoff detention or a sediment basin) that are part of the NPS
project, even though they are required under NPDES construction stormwater permits until stabilization
and other termination conditions are met.
7.1.2 Animal Feeding Operations
Section 319 funds may be used to support the implementation of a wide range of water quality
management options for animal feeding operations (AFO) that are not subject to NPDES permits. Some
operations may be defined as a concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) (40 CFR Section
122.23(b)) or designated as a CAFO (40 CFR Section 122.23(c)). Activities necessary to satisfy NPDES
requirements are not eligible for Section 319 funds.
The EPA recognizes the benefits of integrating Section 319 funds and NPDES activities to achieve the
CWA goals, as much as is legally allowable. In general, the use of Section 319 funds should advance
water quality protection or restoration beyond the requirements or measures required by the NPDES
program (i.e., implement projects, performance measures, and outreach and education efforts not
required by the NPDES program). States should consult with their EPA regional coordinator on Section
319 funding eligibility and are strongly encouraged to do so early in the project development process.
-------
7.1.3 Abandoned Mine Lands
Abandoned mine land reclamation projects designed to restore water quality are eligible for Section 319
funding except where funds are used to implement specific requirements in NPDES permits or
unpermitted point source discharges. For example, Section 319 funds cannot be used to build treatment
systems required by an NPDES permit or at an unpermitted point source to manage drainage at an
inactive mine, but funds may be used to fund various other remediation activities at the same mine.
Examples of activities that could be eligible for funding include:
• Remediating water pollution from abandoned mines that are not required to meet NPDES
permit requirements.
• Remediating water pollution from portions of abandoned mine sites that are not within the
geographic scope or regulated footprint in an NPDES permit.
• Mapping and planning remediation at abandoned mine land sites.
• Conducting the monitoring needed to design and evaluate the effectiveness of implementation
strategies other than implementation of NPDES permit requirements.
• Providing technical assistance to state and local abandoned mine land programs.
• Conducting information and education programs.
• Offering technology transfer and training.
• Developing and implementing policies to address abandoned mine lands.
7.1.4 Urban Stormwater Runoff
Section 319 funds may be used to fund any urban stormwater runoff activities that are not specifically
required by an NPDES permit. In urban areas, urban stormwater runoff is commonly transported through a
system of conveyances (e.g., storm drains, pipes, ditches) and then often discharged, untreated, into local
water bodies. The conveyance system owned by a state, city, town, village, or other public entity is
referred to as an MS4. Many MS4s in urban areas are regulated under the NPDES program.
The EPA recognizes the benefits of integrating Section 319 funds and urban stormwater runoff activities
to achieve the CWA goals as much as is legally allowable. Stormwater BMPs may be required under the
terms of an NPDES permit. In general, in cases where management activities such as pollution
prevention, GSI, or low-impact development are funded using Section 319 funds, those funded activities
should advance water quality protection or restoration above and beyond the requirements or
measures required by the NPDES permit (i.e., implement projects, performance measures, and outreach
and education efforts not required by an NPDES permit). Examples of GSI that may be appropriate for
Section 319 funding include green roofs, bioretention practices, urban tree canopy, landscaped swales,
and wetland/riparian area protection and restoration. In addition to implementing GSI, the following
urban runoff management activities may generally be considered eligible for Section 319 funding as long
as they are not required by an NPDES permit (this list is not meant to be comprehensive):
• Providing technical assistance to state and local stormwater programs.
• Conducting the monitoring needed to design and evaluate the effectiveness of implementation
strategies.
• Designing, implementing, or installing structural and nonstructural BMPs for pollution
prevention and urban runoff control (except for BMPs that are required by NPDES permits).
-------
• Developing and conducting education programs outside of NPDES permit requirements, i.e.,
outreach and educational efforts and activities conducted on the watershed, region, or state
level that are not required by an NPDES permit but address NPS pollution in an area that
includes an MS4 subject to an NPDES permit.
• Offering technology transfer and training.
• Developing and implementing regulations, policies, and local ordinances to address stormwater
runoff (These may apply to areas covered by NPDES permits, provided that the regulations,
policies, and ordinances also apply to nonpermitted areas).
• Implementing stormwater projects outside of the geographic area of the MS4 subject to the
NPDES permit; developing WBPs that go beyond permit requirements or include areas not
regulated by the permit.
In addition to not being used to meet requirements in NPDES permits for MS4s, Section 319 funds may
not be used to implement NPDES permit application requirements. For example, Section 319 funds may
not be used to map stormwater systems, identify illicit connections, characterize stormwater discharges,
or perform other activities needed to meet permit application requirements. Section 319 funds may not
be used to conduct monitoring or pay for BMPs or "end of pipe" treatments that are required as part of
an NPDES permit. These prohibitions are based on the statutory limitations on the use of Section 319
funds, specifically that Section 319 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 for MS4s without federal nonpoint source grants.
As NPDES permits for MS4s continue to evolve, more may include retention-based requirements and
greater specificity in required management practices. A review of permit requirements may be needed
to determine the eligibility of specific projects for Section 319 funding. In these cases, states should
consult with their EPA regional coordinator on Section 319 funding eligibility and are strongly
encouraged to do so early in the project development process. In addition, states should consider
whether municipal governments are sufficiently using other available funding sources for innovative
urban stormwater runoff management, such as funds derived from stormwater-related fees and CWSRF
financial assistance (see CWSRF: Stormwater).
7.2 NPS Work and Cross-Cutting Environmental Compliance Laws
For watershed projects that include the construction or creation of structural BMPs on land or in waters,
states must document compliance with crosscutting laws, which can include, among other procedures:
• Use of the EPA's Information on Cross-Cutting Requirements for Subawards Issues, which
contains information on statutory, regulatory, and Executive Order cross-cutting requirements
for recipients that make subawards.
• Existing state processes for conducting assessments and ensuring compliance with CWA sections
401 and 404, where applicable.
• Existing state processes for conducting assessments and other compliance activities under the
Archaeological and Paleontological Resources Protection Act, the National Historical
Preservation Act and/or the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.
• Existing state processes to determine if any other Crosscutting Authorities apply.
-------
• CWA Section 513 applies the Davis-Bacon and Related Act (Davis Bacon) requirements to
"treatment works" projects for which grants are made under the CWA. CWA Section 212 defines
construction and treatment works for grants under Title II. Although the Section 212 definition
can be used as a guide for determining whether a project is a treatment works for purposes of
Section 319(h) grants, if the project meets the definition and if the contract expense is greater
than $2,000, Davis Bacon would apply. The Department of Labor has resources and a hotline to
understand how to comply with Davis Bacon, including its updated Davis Bacon regulations.
effective October 23, 2023.
• All recipients, including states, must comply with the EPA's disadvantaged business enterprise
(DBE) requirements at 40 CFR part 33. which supplement 2 CFR 200.321. These requirements
include, among other requirements, that a recipient must make good faith efforts to contract
with DBEs whenever procuring construction, equipment, services, and supplies under an EPA
financial assistance agreement. See 40 CFR 33.301. For additional information on this and other
procurement requirements, see the EPA's Best Practice Guide for Procuring Services. Supplies,
and Equipment Under EPA Assistance Agreements.
• The Build America Buy America (BABA) Act provisions of the IIJA (P.L. 117-58, sections 70911-
70917) state that "none of the funds made available for a federal financial assistance program
for infrastructure...may be obligated for a project unless all of the iron, steel, manufactured
products, and construction materials used in the project are produced in the United States." See
Section 70914(a). The Buy America preference requirement applies to an entire infrastructure
project, even if it is funded by both federal and nonfederal funds. A recipient must implement
these requirements in its procurements, and these requirements must flow down to all
subawards and contracts at any tier. For more information about BABA's applicability and the
waiver process, see 2 CFR part 184, effective October 23, 2023; the EPA's BABA website; and the
Office of Management and Budget's Made In America Office's BABA website. Contact your EPA
regional for NPS project-specific questions.
The National Environmental Policy Act does not apply to Section 319 funds. CWA Section 511(c)(1)
states that the only EPA actions under the CWA subject to the National Environmental Policy Act
requirements for "major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment" are
new source permits and grants for the construction of publicly owned treatment works. Section 319
grants do not fit within either category; therefore, they are not subject to National Environmental Policy
Act requirements.
7.3 Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments
States that have chosen to develop state coastal zone management programs under the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972 are required to develop and implement state coastal nonpoint pollution control
programs (CNPCPs) under Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990
(CZARA) 15 U.S.C 1455b. CNPCPs are implemented through updates and expansions of state NPSMPs
administered under Section 319, as well as through updated state coastal zone management programs.
Coastal nonpoint pollution control program implementation
States with approved CNPCPs under CZARA should use Section 319 funds to help implement these
programs. CZARA directs states to implement their CNPCPs through their state NPSMPs. Therefore, state
NPSMP staff should work closely with state coastal nonpoint program staff to coordinate the state's
-------
CNPCP with the state's NPSMP. States with approved CNPCPs are expected to include meaningful
CZARA-related milestones in their five-year NPSMPs to ensure planning and priorities are aligned
between the two programs, track CZARA program progress, and provide updates on CZARA-related
annual milestones in their Section 319 annual reports. An example milestone that may be included in an
annual report might be that a state has committed to inspecting 50% of the decentralized wastewater
systems across its coastal nonpoint management area by a certain year. See Appendix A for NPSMP plan
elements and Appendix E for annual reporting.
CZARA set-aside
Consistent with the EPA's 2013 Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and
Territories, any state that has developed a coastal zone management program but has not yet met
conditions in the earlier CNPCP approval needs to set aside the lesser of 5% of its federal allocation in
Section 319 funds or $100,000 towards completion of a fully approved CNPCP. The CZARA set-aside
applies only to any state with a program that the EPA and NOAA approved, subject to conditions that
have not yet been met. Additionally, the CZARA set-aside does not apply if the EPA and NOAA have
already determined that the state has failed to meet the conditions on the earlier CNPCP, and the
federal agencies have begun withholding grant funds under CZARA Section (c)(4). The EPA will
implement this set-aside prior to determining the split between the watershed project funds and NPS
program funds.
Affected states currently subject to this CZARA set-aside expectation are encouraged to coordinate with
their regional office to determine the appropriate level of funds to be put toward the set-aside. The set-
aside may be met on an average annual basis. For example, a Section 319-funded project that commits
triple the state's minimum yearly set-aside in one grant year will also meet the set-aside requirements
for the following two grant years, as long as the Section 319 funding allocations do not significantly
increase in those years. The CZARA set-aside would remain until the EPA and NOAA jointly determine
that all the conditions of the federal agencies' earlier approval of the state's CNPCP have been met.
States must detail the use of this set-aside in their annual Section 319 grant work plans to describe how
it will support advancement towards full program approval under CZARA.
7.4 National Water Quality Initiative Monitoring
Section 319 funding is an important complement to the dedicated USDA resources provided for the
NWQI. In a national bulletin published each year, NRCS establishes a NWQI participation level of a
minimum of three HUC-12 planning and/or implementation watersheds and/or source water protection
areas per state. As described in the memorandum Guidance on Monitoring in NWQI watersheds - EPA
Expectations and Program Support in FY14, the EPA expects states to select at least one NWQI
watershed for focused monitoring. States should devote sufficient resources—Section 319 and others
(e.g., CWA Section 106)—to meet NWQI expectations and objectives.34 If Section 319 funds are used for
BMP/project implementation and/or monitoring in connection with the NWQI, states should coordinate
with NRCS as appropriate when developing related grant work plan elements (e.g., selecting watersheds
and source water protection projects, developing and implementing monitoring programs).
34 States are encouraged but not required to devote Section 319 funds to support NWQI implementation.
-------
7.5 Protecting Healthy Waters and Watersheds
The EPA has long recognized water quality protection as a key part of NPS pollution management efforts
to achieve the CWA's objective "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of the Nation's waters" (33 U.S.C. Section 1251(a); CWA Section 101(a)). Because of the vast and
pressing problem of water quality impairments nationwide and the primacy of NPS pollution as a cause
of many of these impairments, these guidelines maintain the primary focus of Section 319 funds on
restoring NPS-impaired waters to meet water quality standards. However, the EPA recognizes the
critical role of protection in achieving NPSMP goals, including improving or maintaining healthy waters
and watersheds, maintaining the resiliency of watersheds to climate impacts, and investing in actions to
prevent future water quality impairments and ensure restoration success. The EPA is placing a renewed
and increased emphasis on actions to protect healthy waters, including through the approaches outlined
below.
Using Section 319 Funds to Protect Healthy Waters
Under these guidelines, the EPA requires that watershed project funds primarily support restoring
impaired waters through the implementation of WBPs or acceptable alternative plans. However, when a
state has an updated NPSMP that identifies protecting healthy waters as a priority and describes its
process for identifying such waters, the state may be able to use watershed project funds to protect the
identified waters after consulting with the EPA through Section 319 grant work plan negotiations. The
proportion of Section 319 watershed project funds allocated to protecting healthy waters could vary
depending on the relative priority of restoration and protection activities in the state's NPSMP and the
array of projects ready for Section 319 funding and implementation in that particular year. States may
also use NPS program funds to protect healthy waters. Section 319 funds may be used for purchasing
conservation easements, leasing land, and the fee simple purchase of land, if the land conservation
activity is consistent with the implementation of a state's NPSMP plan.
Chapter 8.7 includes a protection-focused NPS success story category to capture the cumulative impact
of program activities that have resulted in the sustained minimization or avoidance of water quality
degradation in healthy waters threatened by stressors and/or watershed alterations. The EPA will
continue working with states to expand opportunities to highlight protection investments and successes
within the national NPS Program.
7.6 Source Water Protection and Section 319 Projects
States may use Section 319 funds for source water projects for both surface water and groundwater,
consistent with the provisions of these guidelines. An NPSMP shares several common goals with the
source water protection program under the Safe Drinking Water Act, including source water protection
areas/delineations, plans, or program priorities. In state NPSMPs that support resiliency efforts, increased
planning efforts in disadvantaged communities may support the mitigation of public health issues related
to threatened/impaired drinking water sources due to harmful algal blooms and other NPS pollution
issues that affect drinking water quality. States may coordinate with state source water protection
programs and local drinking water providers to design, through Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
(DWSRF) set-aside funds, NPS projects in areas critical to source water quality, furthering Section 319
funding. See Chapter 11.2.4 for more information on the DWSRF set-aside funds. See Chapter 8.4.1 for
the ability to track Section 319-funded projects in source water protection areas in GRTS.
-------
7.7 Lake Restoration and Protection Activities
The EPA continues to emphasize effective watershed management as the primary approach for lake
restoration and protection. In-lake management practices have generally been discouraged, and the EPA
limits Section 319 funds for in-lake management practices strictly for situations where pollution sources
in the watershed are being controlled as completely as is practical (e.g., addressing erosion and
sedimentation sources before dredging a lake, controlling external nutrient loads before nutrient
inactivation in a lake with internally driven algal blooms/phosphorus recycling). Upstream pollutant
sources should be treated first, and implementation efforts should be well underway in the lake
drainage area before the EPA will consider approving the use of Section 319 funding for in-lake
management practices.
If a state believes in-lake management practice(s) are warranted, they should consult with their regional
EPA NPS contact in advance to discuss project eligibility and provide proper documentation. Before
determining if a specific project(s) is eligible, the EPA will review the proposal(s) and additional
documentation. This documentation may include but not be limited to human health risks due to
harmful algal blooms, a disproportionate burden or impact to disadvantaged communities, internal and
external phosphorus loads analysis, recommended strategies identified in TMDLs or WBPs, and source
water protection concerns.
With proper documentation, it can be appropriate to use Section 319 funds for an in-lake management
practice. If it is determined that additional in-lake management practices may be needed or ongoing,
any use of such treatment in the future should be funded from alternative sources as outlined in the
WBP. Additionally, using Section 319 funding for ongoing operation and maintenance of a waterbody
through in-lake treatments is not a practicable or eligible use of funds.
7.8 Monitoring: Context, Flexibilities, and Long-term Programs
The EPA recognizes that monitoring is essential for documenting the restoration of impaired waters and
the protection of high-quality waters. The EPA encourages states to use Section 319 funds as appropriate
for eligible NPS monitoring activities identified in the state NPSMP (see Appendix A). Monitoring efforts
are only eligible if related to identifying nonpoint sources of pollution, developing a WBP or TMDL,
assessing the impact of NPS pollution control activities, or implementing projects aimed at protection;
other monitoring activities cannot be supported with either NPS program or watershed project funds.
7.8.1 Integrating with Ambient Monitoring and Assessment Efforts
The EPA encourages state NPSMPs to coordinate with state ambient monitoring and assessment efforts,
including those supported through the Section 106 Water Pollution Control Program (see Chapter 11.2.6),
to ensure that NPS monitoring needs are considered in the design and planning of the state water
quality monitoring program. State NPSMPs can benefit from leveraging existing ambient monitoring
programs35 for water quality trends, using and expanding flow gauging stations, and coordinating with
monitoring programs that routinely address water quality standards attainment, such as using state-
scale statistical surveys or monitoring on a rotating basin basis. Approaches that can provide useful
35 Existing data sets are consolidated and easily downloaded via sites like the EPA's How's My Waterway, the EPA's
WATERS, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Inventory, among others.
-------
information for an NPSMP include monitoring required as part of regulatory programs to implement
NPS pollution control (e.g., monitoring to assess compliance), ambient water quality monitoring (e.g.,
small watersheds, multiple watersheds, in-lake monitoring, monitoring by public water systems),
beneficial use assessment (e.g., biological/habitat assessment, attainment of biocriteria and water
quality standards), tracking of implementation or land use activities affecting water quality (e.g., BMP
audits, activity tracking, geographic information system tracking of land use and land management), and
photographic evidence. Statewide monitoring councils made up of local, state, university, and federal
agencies involved in monitoring can help state NPSMPs by providing a forum for the routine sharing of
monitoring activities and supporting efforts such as citizen monitoring programs. In some cases, an
NPSMP objective may benefit from additional monitoring supported by Section 319 or other funding
sources (see Chapter 6.4 for examples of what types of funding—program or project—might apply).
States are encouraged to explore other cost-effective approaches for conducting monitoring or
obtaining available data. For example, the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), NOAA, USDA NRCS, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), universities, conservation districts, and others support
assessment of various types and may house useful data. Some of these organizations also offer technical
support and monitoring assistance. In addition, many states rely on volunteer monitoring programs to
obtain water quality data cost-effectively. Any water quality monitoring or assessment program with a
quality assurance project plan that has been reviewed and approved by the state (allowing confidence in
the data for use by the NPSMP) can be used as appropriate.
7.8.2 National NPS Long-Term Monitoring
The EPA, in collaboration with several states, implemented a rigorous and standardized monitoring
framework of Section 319-funded projects from 1991 to 2011 that informed improved approaches to
BMPs (see the National Nonpoint Source Monitoring Program website). The results and lessons learned
from these longer-term project efforts helped shape several BMP expectations for NPS pollution control.
The EPA recognizes the value of supporting longer-term monitoring (5-10 years) to further evaluate
BMP effectiveness and longevity for addressing NPS impairments and protecting water quality in a
changing climate. These projects might be broken into phases over different work plans and would be
considered an eligible use of project funds. The total funding for long-term monitoring should not
exceed 10% of project dollars. States opting to prioritize such longer-term monitoring should work
closely with their EPA regional contacts. From time to time, and in close collaboration with relevant
states and project managers, the EPA will publish progress reports and results. In the interim, the EPA
encourages states to use available NPS-focused resources to support effectiveness monitoring if they
choose to incorporate monitoring into project planning (see Guidance: Monitoring and Evaluating
Nonpoint Source Watershed Projects).
7.9 Climate
Section 319 funds are intended to improve, restore, and protect water quality. Climate change impacts
including but not limited to altered precipitation rates, increased water temperatures, and more
frequent and severe disaster events can impact NPS pollution loadings over time. As such, the EPA
encourages states to consider resilience to climate change and natural hazard mitigation in project
design and selection (see Chapter 2).
-------
7.9.1 Resilience
Resilience is the ability of a BMP or nature-based solution to recover and maintain design function or
performance following extreme weather events. When creating project descriptions, the state and EPA
regional reviewer should consider whether the project proposal includes BMP or nature-based solution
designs that consider future climate model predictions and risks that are geographically relevant to the
project area. Examples may include selecting drought and temperature-tolerant plants, considering
changes to flood zones, and increasing the design capacity to accommodate future predicted
stormwater volumes.
7.9.2 Co-benefits
Nature-based solutions are actions to protect, conserve, restore, and sustainably manage natural or
modified ecosystems. These actions use natural features or processes to address public health and
environmental challenges while providing multiple benefits to people and nature. Within the context of
NPS management, "co-benefits" occur when a nature-based solution derives benefits beyond the
intended function to restore or protect water quality. For example, GSI implemented to improve water
quality as a primary benefit can also provide recreational space, habitat diversity, natural hazard risk
reduction, and human health benefits. Additionally, BMPs such as living shorelines can reduce coastal
erosion and improve quality while supporting community resiliency to sea level rise.
Please note the primary driver of Section 319-funded projects should be water quality improvement, and
projects including co-benefits should be mainly implemented to meet goals identified in the approved
NPSMP. Grantees are encouraged to describe potential "co-benefits" in project descriptions and reports.
7.9.3 Integrated Planning
There are opportunities to align hazard mitigation, climate adaptation, and disaster recovery goals at
the federal, state, and local levels (Chapter 11.3). Federal agencies such as FEMA and USACE support
planning and projects that include nature-based solutions to address natural hazards and climate risks.36
In conducting watershed or project implementation planning, NPSMPs are encouraged to be aware of
other plans, such as state and local HMPs, floodplain management plans, or other local climate
adaptation/resilience initiatives active in the watershed/project area. When possible, watershed planners
should coordinate with the hazard mitigation officers, emergency managers, or other entities leading
hazard mitigation and/or climate-focused planning efforts as the critical areas and/or priorities align.
36 Integrated planning in these guidelines refers to a planning approach that recognizes the synergies and common
goals between hazard mitigation and water quality programs and works to collaborate across programs, share
data, and leverage resources and expertise. Note, within the context of these guidelines, Integrated planning does
not refer to the six planning elements found in the 2012 Integrated Municipal Stormwater and Wastewater
Planning Framework as defined under CWA Section 402(s).
-------
Chapter 8. Reporting and Tracking
8.1 Statute and Regulatory Background
All CWA Section 319(h) grants are subject to the Office of Management and Budget's general grant
regulations in 2 CFR part 200 (Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit
Requirements for Federal Awards); the EPA's 2 CFR part 1500; 40 CFR part 33; and 40 CFR part 35,
subpart A. which specify a variety of basic grant reporting requirements for federal financial assistance
from the EPA. The grant regulations outline a range of administrative reporting requirements, including
performance and financial reports. Section 319(h) (10) and (11) contain additional provisions related to
reporting:
• Section 319(h)(10) authorizes the EPA to request information, data, and reports as necessary to
determine a state's continuing eligibility to receive Section 319 grants.
• Section 319(h)(ll) requires states to report annually on their progress in meeting the schedule
of milestones contained in their NPSMPs, report available information on NPS pollutant loading
reductions, and report on improvements to water quality resulting from implementing NPSMPs.
The basic reporting requirements discussed in more detail below are NPSMP annual progress reports,
grantee performance reports, and financial status reports. The EPA uses reporting through Section 319
GRTS for web-enabled data entry to support those reporting expectations.
Reporting requirements are included in the Terms and Conditions for Section 319(h) grant recipient. The
specific reporting requirements for Section 319 grants are discussed below. EPA regions and states
should assess the effectiveness of the reporting process and determine annually if adjustments or
modifications are necessary.
In general, reporting should be sufficiently detailed to enable a reviewer to ascertain whether outputs
and milestones are being achieved on schedule, identify any problems that may be arising in carrying
out tasks in the grant work plan, identify corrective actions to address such problems expeditiously, and
adequately account for all federal funds expended. Performance reporting is separate from the financial
information in the Federal Financial Report and includes content such as regular updates on subaward
spending and match accrual.
8.2 NPSMP Annual Progress Report
States must report annually on progress in implementing the NPSMP plan per Section 319(h)(ll)(B). The
report provides an effective means of assessing progress to date, providing case studies of particular
projects, and conveying information to a broader audience on the activities being conducted by the
state. States have the flexibility to provide this information in various formats37 and, while brief, should
contain sufficient information to support the evaluation of progress. The annual progress report should
include the following (unless already reported to the EPA in grant progress reports, GRTS, etc.):
37 States' selected formats can range from interactive reports like story maps to printable hardcopy reports.
-------
• A brief summary of progress, including evidence/examples, toward meeting approved
milestones and the short- and long-term goals and objectives identified in the state NPSMP.
• A table displaying milestones from the current year for the approved state NPSMP with the
following information for each milestone:
o Applicable project or program
o Scheduled project completion date
o Percent completed
o Leveraged funds
• A discussion of the extent to which federal agencies, lands, and activities within the state are
supporting the state in meeting approved milestones.
• A summary of the available information on the extent of reductions in NPS loadings achieved
due to implementation. (More detailed information should be provided through GRTS.)
• A summary of the available information on the improvement in water quality (including aquatic
habitat quality) due to NPSMP implementation. This summary can address, for example,
progress towards water quality standards, TMDL load reductions implemented, trends in aquatic
biology, or other measures of progress used by the state. (More detailed information should be
provided through GRTS.)
• Where information is not yet available on load reductions and water quality improvement for
waters or watersheds where implementation is underway, surrogate measures of
environmental progress should be used, and progress should be reported in terms of the degree
or percentage of the completion of the project.
• A discussion of efforts, including recently completed, ongoing, and planned activities and
anticipated results, to advance environmental justice in their Section 319 programs.
Some states choose 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 wish to include other types of information in their reports or on their websites (and
refer to the information in their reports), such as:
• Brief case studies of any particularly successful NPS control efforts. Information on increased
public awareness of NPS pollution and engagement in addressing it.
• Copies of products produced by the state program (e.g., outreach materials, BMP documents).
• Successful efforts to integrate and align CWA and other (e.g., Safe Drinking Water Act, CZARA)
programs to better deliver water quality results or other especially successful collaborations.
• Lower public water supply treatment costs or requirements due to water quality improvements.
• Observed shifts in precipitation, temperature, or natural disasters and the impact that has on
BMP design or prioritization.
-------
8.3 Grant Progress
8.3.1 Grantee Performance Reports
States are required to submit performance reports on the status of Section 319 grants (2 CFR 200.329).
At a minimum, states should submit these reports on an annual basis by a date specified in the grant
agreement and/or work plan. Final reports are due no later than 120 days after the end of the period of
performance for the grant, pursuant to 2 CFR 200.344. Performance reports must include (at a
minimum):
• A performance/milestone summary. This listing includes major program and project
accomplishments for the period (based on the project and program milestones or commitments
contained in the approved work plans, grant agreements, or special terms and conditions), as
well as progress made toward meeting future milestones. The state may accomplish some or
this entire reporting requirement through its annual report, as discussed in Chapter 8.2.
• The reasons for delays in meeting scheduled milestones/commitments and a discussion of what
actions (state, federal, or other) will be taken to resolve any current or anticipated problems.
• Additional pertinent information including, when appropriate, an analysis and explanation of
cost overruns, unanticipated events/consequences, etc.
8.3.2 Federal Financial Reports
Grantees are required to submit federal financial reports using Standard Form 425 or 425(a) to report
the status of funds under each grant (2 CFR 200.328). At a minimum, states should submit financial
reports annually. Final financial reports are due no later than 120 days after the end of the period of
performance for the grant.
8.4 The Grants Reporting and Tracking System
GRTS is an online database that enables states and EPA regions to fulfill Section 319 grant reporting
requirements. This comprehensive database of NPSMP information tracks Section 319 activities and
information and enhances the understanding of NPS projects and programs. GRTS reporting aids in the
program's accountability, the transparency of the funds being awarded and leveraged, and the
successes being achieved. Information in the GRTS database demonstrates the value and success of
state and territory NPSMPs. GRTS is accessed regularly by EPA headquarters and regional staff and is the
basis for responding to inquiries from Congress; the Office of Management and Budget; the Government
Accountability Office; state NPSMP staff; nonprofit organizations; the public; and other federal, state,
and local agencies.
Additionally, GRTS data is fed directly into and displayed in multiple EPA databases/data viewers,
including Watershed Assessment, Tracking & Environmental Results System (WATERS). Drinking Water
Mapping Application to Protect Source Water (DWMAPS). and How's My Waterway.
States are required to use GRTS to report all nationally mandated elements described in the most recent
GRTS memorandum posted on the GRTS website. This requirement is included in the Terms and
Conditions for Section 319(h) grant recipients. The mandated elements include the parameters
necessary to successfully account for the accomplishments of the Section 319 program. GRTS has the
capacity to accept additional information on state programs and projects beyond the mandated
-------
elements outlined in the most recent GRTS guidance. States are encouraged to take advantage of
nonmandated fields within GRTS, including uploading copies of WBPs (or acceptable alternative plans);
project implementation plans; or other documents such as photographs, evaluations, and invoices into
the GRTS system as a means for more complete data management and project reporting.
States may also allow subgrantees receiving Section 319 funds to directly enter data into GRTS, thereby
reducing the state's reporting burden. States are responsible for the quality of any data entered into
GRTS by any subgrantee and must adopt practices to ensure this accuracy. States are encouraged to
work with EPA regions to develop such practices. Alternatively, an XML form outlining GRTS data fields is
available for states to provide to their subgrantees to complete and return to the state if desired. The
state can then enter the data provided by the subgrantee by uploading the final XML template into
GRTS.
EPA regions are encouraged to work with their states to design reporting procedures using GRTS. To
support the annual demonstration of satisfactory progress (per Section 319(h)(8)), states are strongly
encouraged to attach elements of their annual report (per Section 319(h)(ll)), along with other reporting
elements identified by the region, into GRTS. Specifics should be discussed with the appropriate EPA
region.
Note that states may use NPS program funding to support the staff time spent using GRTS (entering
data, etc.) because GRTS is an official reporting vehicle for programs or projects conducted by states
under Section 319(h) grants. EPA regions and states should work together to ensure sufficient resources
are available to meet reporting requirements and support needs. Examples of GRTS support needs
include providing adequate staff support; purchasing necessary equipment, materials, and supplies
(including high-speed internet access or other links that enable the fast and efficient transfer of data to
and from GRTS); and attending GRTS workshops and participating in GRTS training opportunities. In
many cases, GRTS-related activities (e.g., estimating and entering load reductions, entering project data)
can be considered a program activity and need not be counted towards the 10% cap on administrative
costs (see Chapter 5.2.5).
The EPA continues to enhance GRTS to incorporate improved tracking and reporting requirements and
minimize the reporting burden of the states and/or subrecipients. The EPA will continue to
communicate with the states on the development of these enhancements and will ensure adequate
notification, training, and direction are provided.38 For the most up-to-date guidance pertaining to GRTS
reporting and tracking, visit the GRTS website or contact the national GRTS coordinator.
8.4.1 Tracking Protection Investments and Water Quality Outcomes
In 2014, the EPA added a data field in GRTS to track NPS projects according to their primary goal of
water quality restoration or protection. Within GRTS, protection projects are defined as those in which
more than 50% of the project budget is used to protect a healthy waterbody. Since 2014, approximately
4% of all state NPS projects reported to GRTS were classified as those aimed primarily at protecting
healthy waters. The EPA will work with states to leverage these project data to highlight the increasing
role of protection in the national NPS Program.
38 The EPA intends to ensure that any new financial reporting requirements implemented through updates to GRTS
are consistent with PPG regulations.
-------
8.4.2 Tracking Efforts to Advance Equity
In 2023, the EPA added a data field to help identify projects that advance equity in disadvantaged
communities. Within GRTS, the state may flag (at the project level) whether the majority of a project's
budget is being used to benefit a disadvantaged community; also, a state may select specific watersheds
within a given project that include activities benefiting disadvantaged communities. Definitions of
qualifying projects will be updated in GRTS to reflect the latest agency guidance.
8.4.3 Tracking Source Water Investments
States and the EPA may use GRTS to track key metrics of the intersecting benefits of Section 319-funded
projects with source water protection areas. The bottom of each GRTS project entry page includes an
additional subsection under "Supplemental Information/' which automatically calculates source water
protection metrics and can be optionally tracked by GRTS users.
8.5 Water Quality Exchange
The EPA requires states to enter their water quality monitoring data—for data collected in a waterbody
as a part of implementing a Section 319 project—into the EPA's WQX data system. All water quality data
generated with Section 319 funding, either directly or by subaward, must be transmitted into the data
warehouse using either the WQX or WQXWeb. Water quality data appropriate for WQX include physical,
chemical, and biological sample results for water, sediment, and fish tissue. The data may include toxicity
data, microbiological data, and the metrics and indices generated from biological and habitat data. WQX is
the water data schema associated with the Environmental Information Exchange Network, which
facilitates environmental data sharing among the EPA, states, Tribes, and territories. More information
about WQX and WQXWeb, including instructions, can be found at the EPA's Water Quality Data and
Water Quality Data Upload with WQX websites.
8.6 Responsibilities for Subrecipients and Reporting
States must ensure that subawards include requirements for subrecipients to comply with grant terms
and conditions and applicable federal requirements. States are expected to work closely with
subrecipients, review all reporting and financial paperwork submitted by subrecipients, conduct site
visits, and act as a liaison to other state programs if needed (see 2 CFR 200.332). Just as the grant
agreement specifies outputs and milestones to be achieved by the states, states should ensure that
agreements with subrecipients specify outputs, milestones, and reporting and record-keeping
requirements. States are required to include information from subrecipients' progress reports in the
states' GRTS reporting, performance reports and/or annual reports. Finally, states are expected to
properly close out projects with grant subrecipients and enter final reports, final budgets, and total load
allocations into GRTS.
States may include in these agreements a provision requiring the subrecipients to enter data into WQX
and GRTS. Access for subrecipients to GRTS data entry should be arranged between the state and the
EPA region. It is the state's responsibility to review data entered into GRTS for accuracy, and the state
must adopt practices to ensure data reliability.
-------
Where a subrecipient provides a portion of the state's match, the state should clearly report actual
match funds used in GRTS and ensure that adequate records are kept with respect to that portion.
2 CFR 200.332 specifies that grantees shall not impose more burdensome requirements on
subrecipients than they are subject to themselves. Also, for more information, refer to the Subrecipient
Management and Monitoring requirements at 2. CFR 200.331. 200.332. and 200.333 as well as the EPA's
GPI 16-01: EPA Subaward Policy for EPA Assistance Agreement Recipients.
8.7 Measuring and Tracking National Program Progress
The EPA's national NPS Program currently relies on NPS success stories to measure and track progress
on a national basis. "Type 1" NPS success stories track the number of waterbodies identified by states as
being primarily NPS-impaired that have been partially or fully restored as a result of NPS restoration
efforts. This national NPS Program reporting measure is important to illustrate the achievements to
control NPS pollution through Section 319 investments. States that have NPSMP plan milestones to
deliver a certain number of NPS success stories help the national NPS Program demonstrate how
investments have led to improved water quality. Since 2009, states have reported success in over 1,100
waterbodies, including 12,300 miles of streams and rivers and 230,00 acres of ponds, lakes, and
reservoirs. This is a considerable achievement, as attaining water quality standards in impaired waters
that were once impaired typically takes many years of concerted effort and investment.
8.7.1 Waters that are Partially or Fully Restored/Delisted (Type 1 - Primary National
NPS Program Reporting Measure)
These stories feature waterbodies that meet water quality standards for one or more pollutants (e.g.,
nutrients, sediment, mercury) and/or designated uses (e.g., drinking water supply, recreation, aquatic
life support) after being previously listed as impaired on the CWA Section 303(d) list of impaired waters
and/or being moved from the Integrated Report Category 4 or 5 to Category 1 or 2. These
improvements can be attributed to NPS control or restoration efforts.
The EPA reports results from these stories to Congress via the NPS measure outlined in the EPA's
National Water Program Guidance, which is defined as "the number of waterbodies identified by states
as being primarily NPS-impaired that have been partially or fully restored as a result of restoration
efforts." This measure is reported quarterly and is an important indicator of the Section 319 programs
accomplishments. This measure is regularly referenced by EPA senior management when describing the
Section 319 program's impact.
8.7.2 Additional Success Story Options
The EPA recognizes that the Type 1 Success Story national NPS Program measure does not capture
incremental milestones that lead to water quality improvements nor reflect the impact of protection
efforts. This section describes options available to state NPSMPs for measuring, tracking, and reporting
program progress and success, including optional new interim and protection metrics. For the
comprehensive and most up-to-date definitions for each measure of success, see the NPS success
stories web page.
-------
Water Quality Improvements
These success stories (also known as Type 2) feature water bodies that show measurable, significant
progress toward achieving water quality goals but do not yet meet water quality standards. In these
cases, water quality improvements include either achieving (1) measurable reductions in a specific
pollutant or (2) improvement in a parameter that indicates water quality improvement (e.g., an increase
in fish or macroinvertebrate counts).
Habitat/Ecological Restoration
These stories (also known as Type 3) generally include waterbodies with water quality problems but
were not listed on the CWA Section 303(d) list or the Integrated Report (for unspecified reasons).
However, restoration efforts were implemented which resulted in one or more uses being restored.
Healthy Waters Protected from Water Quality Impairment
These stories (also known as Type 4) feature NPS activities that have resulted in the sustained
prevention of water quality degradation in healthy waters threatened by NPS pollution, including
pollutant stressors and/or watershed alterations. Through these stories, the EPA seeks to highlight NPS
activities that were strategically targeted to achieve water quality protection goals.
Interim Metrics/Reporting and NPSMP Accomplishments
These stories (also known as Type 5) feature other qualitative measures of an NPSMP's progress toward
restoring/improving water quality and hydrology that has not yet resulted in a measurable or observed
water quality improvement. Interim metrics/measures stories can include a wide range of indicators of
success including, but not limited to:
• Completion of all management measures to address critical source areas identified in a
watershed plan.
• Number and types of BMPs implemented through a watershed plan, alternative plan, and/or
TMDL implementation (e.g., at least 80% implementation of management measures identified in
the watershed plan).
• Co-benefits beyond water quality goals (e.g., flood risk reduction (water quality volume
stored/captured), urban heat island reduction, increased green space, source water protection
achievements).
• Number and description of landowners in a watershed engaging in the program by
implementing targeted water quality BMPs.
• Reported changes in community behavior relating to a water quality NPS issue or quantified
success in disadvantaged communities.
-------
The EPA also recognizes the importance of other program efforts to further water quality results and
agrees with feedback to also capture those key milestones in a state's programs' efforts.39 State
measures that are part of an approved state NPSMP will be considered by the EPA for demonstrating
progress toward meeting annual milestones under Section 319(h)(8). These measures may include but
are not limited to:
• Progress and accomplishments achieved by state NPS regulatory programs (number of acres
under regulation, percentage acreage in compliance if applicable).
• Key NPS program milestones accomplished (featured in the NPSMP plan annual report).
• Program efforts that further equity and environmental justice.
39 The latest definitions for these programmatic metrics are found at www.epa.gov/nps/success.
-------
Chapter 9. Management and Oversight
9.1 Overview of Management and Oversight of CWA Section 319
Grants
The EPA's oversight role is vital to ensuring that the national NPS Program is strategic, science-based,
and focused on environmental results and that the states' implementation of NPSMPs meets statutes,
regulations, and guidelines. EPA headquarters and regions coordinate to ensure an appropriate level of
program oversight in the implementation of these grant guidelines while also allowing states to
implement NPSMPs in a manner that meets their unique circumstances and NPS priorities. EPA
headquarters provides leadership and support to regions and states through policy development,
technical assistance, and programmatic reporting. EPA regional staff have day-to-day oversight and
support responsibilities that require technical and regulatory knowledge and a strong working
understanding of how each state implements its unique program.
The EPA and the states work collaboratively through these various oversight mechanisms to implement
an effective national NPS Program. In conducting oversight activities, the EPA relies on information and
reports provided by the state, the data entered into GRTS and WQX, and periodic site visits. EPA regions
are primarily responsible for reviewing, commenting on, and accepting documentation required under
the Section 319 program. Relevant documentation/information includes the approved state NPSMP, the
annual report required by Section 319(h)(ll), the annual grant work plan along with grant progress
reports, WBPs and other plans (e.g., TMDL implementation plan, protection plan) that guide Section
319-funded projects, subaward reporting, and reported environmental results, including load reductions
and water quality improvements. See Chapter 8 for more information on tracking results. In addition to
reviewing reports, EPA regions will confer and engage with each state regularly to discuss progress in
implementing the state's NPSMP. As required by 2 CFR part 200, EPA regions also conduct periodic
reviews of states' NPSMPs. State programs are also subject to audits by the Government Accountability
Office. The EPA will contact states if additional information is needed.
Important oversight activities for the EPA include ensuring and supporting states' updates and
implementation of NPSMPs; ensuring that annual work plans link to the goals and milestones within
state NPSMPs; ensuring state work plans represent an appropriate balance of staffing, programmatic
activities, and projects to meet the goals of the state NPSMPs; supporting development and
implementation of WBPs or acceptable alternative plans; and ensuring that state actions translate into
on-the-ground results. EPA regions should also review and discuss with the state the balance between
developing and implementing TMDLs and WBPs. See Chapter 4.5.1 for more discussion of the
integration of watershed-based planning with TMDLs.
9.2 Annual Performance and Progress Determinations
9.2.1 Satisfactory Progress Determination
The EPA has a statutory obligation under Section 319(h)(8) to determine if a state made satisfactory
progress in meeting the schedule of relevant annual milestones specified in their current NPSMPs. The
EPA is prohibited from awarding grants under Section 319(h) in the absence of such a determination for
-------
the preceding fiscal year. This is another essential reason that the EPA requires that NPSMPs be
reviewed and updated every five years—so the program objectives and milestones remain relevant for
each successive grant award. As noted in Chapter 3.5 of these guidelines, states that do not maintain
current NPSMPs run the very serious risk of a determination of unsatisfactory progress. EPA
determinations are based on state activities, reports, reviews, other documents, and discussions with
the state in the previous year. The EPA is also responsible for ensuring accountability for the
management of Section 319(h) grant funds broadly and is authorized by Section 319(h)(10) and under its
grant-making authority to request certain information needed to determine the state's continuing grant
eligibility and performance.
EPA regions must include in the Section 319 grant funding recommendation—or in a separate document
such as a grant issuance cover letter—a written determination that the state has made satisfactory
progress during the previous fiscal year, along with brief explanations to support these determinations.
The final determination of state NPSMP progress is made by the EPA regional administrator (but more
typically the EPA regional water division director through redelegation). This determination is based on a
review conducted by the appropriate regional staff40 using a standardized template (Appendix D). which
addresses the requirement under Section 319(h)(8), as well as key information regarding Section 319(h)
grant performance more broadly.
Note that specific practices related to documenting and concurring on satisfactory progress may vary
from EPA region to region. However, regions and states should agree on the general procedures for
ensuring states are notified in a timely manner of determinations and for discussing regional
comments/concerns. For example, a best practice is for EPA regional Section 319 project officers to
email the state the determination result in addition to attaching it to the funding recommendation.
9.2.2 Award Conditions Based on Progress Reviews
States may occasionally encounter unexpected challenges in implementing their 5-year NPSMP plan in
any particular year (e.g., excessive unliquidated obligations or delayed update of their NPSMP plans),
resulting in a situation where the EPA recognizes the need to address progress expectations. In these
rare cases, the region may still conclude that progress has been sufficiently satisfactory to proceed with
the grant award. In these situations, the region may elect to award the entire grant but include specific
conditions on the release of funds under the grant award. These conditions would require that an
outstanding item, task, or program element be addressed to demonstrate continued satisfactory
progress by a specified date (e.g., within a year from the date of grant award). Conditions based on the
progress review would be associated with a specified portion of the grant award and would need to be
met prior to the release of the associated funding amount. The EPA regional water division director and
grant management officer may include such grant conditions with the concurrence of the national NPS
Program manager in the EPA's Office of Water.
40 For standalone grants, this is typically the Section 319 grant project officer or the regional EPA NPS program
contact. For states that include Section 319 in a PPG, this is the Section 319 program coordinator.
-------
Chapter 10. Waiver Process
Circumstances may arise in which a state believes it has no choice but to develop and submit a work
plan for a grant 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 the EPA regional water division director. The
request should identify the requirement for which a waiver is requested, identify the circumstances
requiring the waiver (explaining why the waiver is necessary to successfully implement the approved
state NPSMP), describe the activities and projects that the state will be implementing instead of those
required by these guidelines, and make a commitment to adhere to the guidelines to the greatest extent
possible. The regional water division director may approve the waiver for the year requested with the
concurrence of the national NPS Program manager in the EPA's Office of Water. The EPA may not waive
statutory requirements.
The waiver provision is intended for use only in unusual circumstances. For example, a waiver may be
considered if national Section 319 funding levels are substantially reduced, and compliance with the
guidelines would result in substantially less environmental benefit (NPS pollution reduction) than the
state's proposed alternative use of the funds.
This waiver process applies only to the requirements established by these guidelines; it does not apply
to any statutory or regulatory requirements or requirements in the EPA orders or policies referenced in
these guidelines.
-------
Chapter 11. Relationship to Other Federal Programs
11.1 Introduction
Building connections to and identifying additional funding sources to accomplish state NPS management
plan goals is an important part of successful implementation. A wide array of CWA and non-CWA
programs align with and are available to support states' efforts in leveraging funds for more effective
implementation of NPS management plans and projects. States are strongly encouraged to develop
relationships with local, state, and federal programs; explore how program goals can potentially align;
and assess how different organizations can work together to accomplish individual goals and long-term
NPS management measures.
This section highlights a few particularly important programs with the most potential for collaboration
and leveraging funds to support NPS pollution management.
11.2 EPA Programs
11.2.1 CWA Section 303(d)
Under CWA Section 303(d), states must develop a list of "water quality limited segments" still requiring
TMDLs. States must develop TMDLs for waters on the Section 303(d) list of impaired or threatened
waters. As mentioned in Chapter 4.5.1. a TMDL is the calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant
that may enter a waterbody so that the waterbody will meet and continue to meet water quality
standards. A TMDL determines a pollutant target (loading capacity), allocates loads to point and
nonpoint sources, and provides a margin of safety.
Because implementation of the load allocations established by these TMDLs (for waters impaired solely
or partly by nonpoint sources) is not directly enforceable under the CWA, the primary implementation
mechanism is generally the state NPS management program coupled with state, local, and federal land
management programs and authorities, and other programs and authorities. Thus, the CWA Section 319
program is an important mechanism for implementing TMDLs and restoring the impaired waters listed
under CWA Section 303(d) where NPS pollution contributes to the water quality impairment.
Implementing these TMDLs often can best be achieved through WBPs that use information derived from
relevant TMDLs. Implementing WBPs has been—and continues to be—one of the EPA's highest
priorities for using Section 319 funds. WBP/TMDL integration may pose a challenge because TMDLs can
be developed at varying watershed scales or for single segments, while the scope of a WBP often targets
a planning area at the HUC-12 watershed level. However, in appropriate cases, developing TMDLs on a
watershed basis can effectively and efficiently address TMDL development commitments and facilitate
integration with the Section 319 program activities.
The EPA encourages states to coordinate their CWA TMDL and Section 319 programs to align priorities
and leverage resources available for the assessment, planning, and implementation of water quality
restoration projects. Additionally, local watershed organizations can contribute important local
knowledge on their watershed and for the timing and selection of management measures. The EPA
strongly encourages states to coordinate their efforts to prioritize, develop, and implement WBPs with
-------
state and EPA efforts to prioritize, develop, and implement TMDLs, consistent with The Vision for the
Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Program. This integration can achieve efficiencies in cost and is
particularly valuable when prioritizing planning efforts and using water quality models for determining
TMDLs that include the ability to run various BMP treatment scenarios. Chapter 6.2.2 specifies
requirements for TMDLs developed with Section 319 funding.
11.2.2 Clean Water State Revolving Funds and Recycled Loan Funds
Congress established the CWSRF in 1987 under the same amendments to the CWA that created the
Section 319 program as a means for sustainably addressing problems caused by both point source and
NPS pollution alike, without partiality to one source over the other. The CWSRF under Title VI of the
CWA is particularly well-suited to help implement NPS projects requiring capital investment, and states
are encouraged to increase their use of these financial resources to help implement WBPs and other
NPS projects. The CWSRF is the nation's largest fund dedicated to addressing water quality problems,
and it presents a significant opportunity for leveraging Section 319 investments. Additionally, in 2014,
Congress expanded CWSRF eligibilities by adding watershed projects meeting the criteria in CWA Section
122 (CWA Section 603(c)(7)), which includes those related to watershed partnerships. Watershed
partnerships are defined at 33 U.S.C. Section 1274(a)(3) as: "[ejfforts of municipalities and property
owners to demonstrate cooperative ways to address nonpoint sources of pollution to reduce adverse
impacts on water quality."
Under the CWSRF, each state develops an annual Intended Use Plan (IUP) subject to public review,
which describes the state's plan for using the CWSRF funding. Typically, lUPs indicate that a portion of
the CWSRF funds will be used for projects implementing the state's NPSMP plan; although not required,
in some cases the lUPs contain a list of the specific NPS activities under Section 319 that the state
expects to fund. State NPS staff should work closely with state CWSRF staff, when possible, to include
high-priority NPS projects from a state's NPSMP in the state's CWSRF IUP. When updating their NPSMPs,
states should clearly identify any potential opportunity to utilize the CWSRF program for eligible
activities. Where applicable, the state NPSMP should explain how NPS projects fit into the state's
prioritization scheme for CWSRF funding and describe state efforts to increase the use of the state
CWSRF to address NPSMP priorities.
In 2021, the EPA released CWSRF Best Practices Guide for Financing Nonpoint Source Solutions: Building
Successful Project Funding (EPA 841-B-21-012) as a resource to help states expand the use of CWSRF for
NPS projects.
In addition, "recycled" CWSRF dollars 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 CWSRF program to provide loans that
fund other water quality projects. These recycled funds are not treated as federal funds for the purposes
of a match; therefore, these funds are eligible to be used as a match for Section 319 funds, provided
that they, like any other Section 319 match funds, are used to implement the approved Section 319
state NPSMP.
These guidelines provide an incentive for states to use state revolving funds and other state funding for
NPS activities by providing additional flexibility with the federal Section 319 funds for states that provide
significant amounts of state funding for NPS watershed project activities (see Chapter 6.6).
-------
11.2.3 Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Reuse Municipal Use Grants Program
The Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Reuse Municipal Grant Program funds the planning, design, and
construction of combined sewer overflows, sanitary sewer overflows, and stormwater management
projects. America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 amended CWA Section 221, which reauthorized the
Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Reuse Municipal Grants program. Grants are awarded to states, which
then provide subawards to eligible entities for projects that address infrastructure needs for combined
sewer overflows, sanitary sewer overflows, and stormwater management. In 2021, the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58, Nov. 15, 2021), also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
(BIL), amended the program to add a focus on funding projects in rural and finically distressed
communities while also eliminating project cost-share requirements for these communities.
11.2.4 Source Water Protection and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
Many federal funding programs can be used to support source water protection efforts and implement
NPS projects. In addition to leveraging CWSRF funds for NPS projects, states can set aside a portion of
their Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) capitalization grants to fund source water protection
projects that also fulfill state NPSMP objectives. These set-asides can support conservation easements,
agricultural BMPs, septic system management and replacement, development of watershed
management plans, vegetative buffers, installing ambient water quality monitoring stations upstream of
intake, and other activities.
Like CWSRF funding, each state develops an annual IUP subject to public review, which describes the
state's plan for using the DWSRF funding. NPSMP staff should coordinate with their state source water
protection program and state DWSRF program to identify common goals that can be addressed using
DWSRF funding. The significant increase in funding to the state revolving fund programs through the
2021 BIL provides more opportunity for states to plan and implement NPS projects that also benefit
drinking water sources.
Effective source water protection includes various actions and activities focused on safeguarding,
maintaining, or improving the quality and/or quantity of sources of drinking water and their contributing
areas. These activities may depend on the type of source being protected (e.g., groundwater, reservoir,
river). The requirements and provisions for source water protection (including groundwater) programs fall
under sections 1428 and 1453 of the Safe Drinking Water Act. States and Tribes may use Section 319 funds
for source water projects for both surface water and groundwater, consistent with the provisions of these
guidelines.
Partnerships with drinking water and source water stakeholders could inform monitoring and
assessment efforts (e.g., assessing previously unassessed waters that contribute to drinking water
sources) and assist in measuring NPS project outcomes. NPSMPs can leverage various funding programs
to implement BMPs to achieve water quality benefits for healthy, threatened, or impaired waters within
source water protection areas. The EPA's Funding Integration Tool for Source Water, or FITS, is a one-
stop-shop tool that explains how users can integrate the state revolving funds and many other federal
funding sources to support activities protecting drinking water sources, including many activities
addressing NPS pollution (contact EPA regional source water coordinators and state source water
protection programs for more information). The EPA encourages strong coordination between NPS and
source water programs, such as:
-------
• Including source water protection information in state NPSMP plans.
• Prioritizing Section 319 project applications that include source water protection activities.
• Developing WBPs focused on source waters.
• Coordinating on NRCS conservation initiatives and projects (e.g., NWQI, RPCC, priority
watersheds).
• Exchanging ambient water quality monitoring data and watershed management information.
Source water protection assessments and plans can inform the development of nine-element WBPs. By
leveraging the resources and assessments of source water protection programs, NPSMPs can produce a
more comprehensive and effective outcome. Helpful source water information includes:
• Delineated source water protection areas - The land areas that contribute water to the public
drinking water supply (surface water or groundwater) and where pollution from human
activities or natural sources poses the greatest threat to source water quality.
• Inventory of potential contaminant sources - A list of all documented and potential contaminant
sources or activities of concern within the source water protection area that might threaten
drinking water supplies.
• Source water protection assessment - A report demonstrating the susceptibility of the public
water system to threats included on the contaminant source inventory list, which connects the
nature and severity of the threat to the likelihood of that threat contaminating source water.
• Source water protection plan - An action plan using the information gathered from the source
water assessment process that includes long-term management strategies for preventing
contamination of drinking water sources.
• Risk and resilience assessments - A report describing the risk to a drinking water system from
malevolent acts and natural hazards, including source water concerns, conducted by community
water systems serving at least 3,300 persons every five years (Section 2013 of the America's
Water Infrastructure Act).
• Data - Public water system ambient source water quality and treated drinking water quality
monitoring data provide valuable information.
• Drinking water program violation data - Safe Drinking Water Act violation data can be accessed
through the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWISi Federal Reporting Services
website or by collaborating with local drinking water utilities to target contaminants of shared
concern in watershed protection or restoration efforts.
In addition, the EPA has an online mapping tool, Drinking Water Mapping Application to Protect Source
Water (DWMAPSi. that NPSMPs can use to understand where source water protection areas are
concentrated and to locate drinking water providers, potential sources of source water contamination,
polluted waterways, protection projects, and local source water collaborative initiatives.
11.2.5 CWA Section 604(b)
Water Quality Management Planning grants are awarded to states under CWA Section 604(b) to carry
out activities in Section 205(j) and Section 303(e). Grant funding may be used to support planning-
related activity categories relevant to the NPSMP (and other CWA program areas), including outreach
and technical assistance, water quality planning, ambient monitoring, and program administration. BIL
-------
funding will infuse approximately $127 million into state Section 604(b) programs for fiscal years 2022-
2026. The EPA's guidelines emphasize the complementary nature of grants awarded under sections
604(b) and 106 and encourage states to use a portion of additional BIL funding to integrate climate and
equity considerations into water quality planning activities.
11.2.6 CWA Section 106
The Water Pollution Control Program under Section 106 of the CWA authorizes the EPA to provide
financial assistance to states, eligible interstate agencies, and eligible Tribes through water pollution
control grants. CWA Section 106 grants can support various water pollution prevention and control
programs and activities, including:
• Monitoring and assessing ambient water quality
• Developing water quality standards (informing Section 303(d) listing determinations)
• Identifying impaired waters and developing TMDLs
• Implementing NPDES permits
• Ensuring compliance
• Conducting enforcement actions
• Protecting source water
• Managing outreach and education programs
State NPSMPs are particularly encouraged to collaborate with state and Tribal ambient water quality
and assessment programs supported through Section 106 to coordinate monitoring efforts in priority
areas identified in the NPSMP plan (for more information, see Chapter 7.8).
11.2.7 Brownfields Program
The EPA's Brownfields Program provides direct funding for brownfields assessment, cleanup, revolving
loans, environmental job training, technical assistance, training, and research. To facilitate the
leveraging of public resources, the EPA's Brownfields Program collaborates with other EPA programs,
other federal programs, and state agencies to identify and make available resources that can be used for
brownfield activities.
11.2.8 Technical Assistance Programs
The EPA also has centers dedicated to supporting technical assistance, including:
• The EPA Office of Water's Environmental Finance Centers offers targeted technical assistance to
local governments, states, Tribes, territories, and nongovernmental organizations to protect
public health, safeguard the environment, and advance environmental justice.
• The Environmental Justice Thriving Communities Technical Assistance Centers provide training
and other assistance to build capacity for navigating federal grant application systems, writing
strong grant proposals, and effectively managing grant funding. In addition, these centers
provide guidance on community engagement, meeting facilitation, and translation and
interpretation services for limited English-speaking participants, thus removing barriers and
improving accessibility for communities with environmental justice concerns.
-------
Other EPA Programs
State NPSMPs are encouraged to coordinate with the following programs to advance mutual goals.
• The EPA's NEP, authorized under Section 320 of the CWA, supports 28 estuaries of national
significance in their efforts to develop and implement long-term, EPA-approved Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plans and annual work plans to address NPS problems and other
estuarine watershed challenges. For example, nutrient and sediment reduction goals from a
state NPS management plan may be accomplished through a Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan that aims to improve estuary habitat by reducing nutrients or sediment
loadings in the NEP's study area.
• The Urban Waters Federal Partnership comprises the EPA and multiple other federal agencies,
and it aims to stimulate regional and local economies, create local jobs, improve quality of life,
and protect Americans' health by revitalizing urban waterways in underserved communities
across the country.
• Wetlands protection and restoration programs that are implemented under Section 404 of the
CWA and under other federal and state authorities and programs.
• Geographic programs, including for the Chesapeake Bay (Section 117); Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative (Section 118); Long Island Sound (Section 119); Lake Champlain (Section 120); Lake
Pontchartrain (Section 121); Puget Sound (Section 320); Columbia River Basin (Section 123); and
the Gulf of Mexico, Pacific Northwest, South Florida, Southeast New England Estuaries, and San
Francisco Bay (CWA Section 320(a)(2)(B)).
• State programs that implement the NPDES point source program, particularly with respect to
urban runoff, construction and development, and CAFOs. For example, states can find areas
within their NPDES program that have similar pollutant reduction goals in their NPSMP. While
Section 319 funds cannot be directly used to implement requirements in a permit, they can be
used to supplement and accelerate nutrient reductions as an addition to within and outside of
adjacent permitted areas when not implementing a permit requirement.
• Under the 2021 BIL, the EPA established the Gulf Hypoxia Program to help Hypoxia Task Force
member states, Tribes, and key partners implement actions to advance the Gulf Hypoxia Action
Plan. These actions include practices to reduce NPS nutrient and sediment loading to the Gulf of
Mexico. Specifically, Hypoxia Task Force member states are encouraged to use Gulf Hypoxia
Program funds to implement and advance their respective Nutrient Reduction Strategies, while
eligible Tribes are encouraged to build capacity towards implementing actions that reduce
nutrient loading in the Mississippi/Atchafalaya River Basin.
• EPA's Water Reuse Program focuses on water reuse (also commonly known as water recycling
or water reclamation), which reclaims water from various sources and then treats and reuses it
for beneficial purposes such as agriculture and irrigation, potable water supplies, groundwater
replenishment, industrial processes, and environmental restoration. Water reuse is a tool that
communities can use to develop climate-resilient water supplies while improving water quality
by preventing pollutants from entering waterways. Water reuse activities that can be
incorporated into watershed management plans to help manage NPS pollution include
stormwater capture and use; rainwater harvesting; or agricultural runoff collection, treatment,
and reuse for irrigation or aquifer recharge. In 2020, the EPA's Water Reuse Program was
established to expand the technical, financial, and institutional capacity of states and
-------
communities interested in water reuse to protect existing supplies or when they need an
alternative water supply. To build this capacity, the program serves three core functions:
1. Implement the National Water Reuse Action Plan (WRAP), which involves over 150
participating organizations that partner with the EPA through 69 actions. Actions in the
WRAP are intended to address local and national barriers to reuse across a range of
topics, including technical, institutional, and financial.
2. Lead the Federal Interagency Working Group for Water Reuse, a group of 15 agencies
coordinating water reuse efforts across the federal government.
3. Integrate water reuse into other EPA programs.
The Water Reuse Program focuses on impacts in five key areas: (1) improving regulatory and
policy clarity to enable reuse; (2) improving public perception of water reuse; (3) advancing
scientific and technological reuse research; (4) providing funding tools; and (5) providing
technical support and information.
11.3 Other Federal Programs
11.3.1 USDA: 2018 Farm Bill, NRCS, and NWQI
The Conservation Title of the Farm Bill provides significant opportunities to work collaboratively with the
USDA to achieve the common goals of restoring and protecting water quality. USDA's Farm Bill
conservation programs, such as the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP), Conservation
Reserve Program, Conservation Stewardship Program, Regional Conservation Partnership Program
(RCPP), and Agricultural Conservation Easement Program, support the agricultural and rural community
by providing funding and other resources to support a range of activities to improve water quality
affected by NPS pollution. These include the implementation of agricultural conservation and
restoration measures (suites of practices); the removal of environmentally sensitive land from
agricultural production; and the protection of wetlands, riparian areas, and other areas of critical
importance to the success of water quality improvement efforts (see the USDA Farm Bill and
Programs & Initiatives websites).
States should expand collaboration with USDA to enhance NPSMP activities via these conservation
programs. Section 319 can fund complimentary activities that include: (1) developing WBPs, watershed
assessments, and other plans to protect or mitigate impaired watersheds, source water priority areas, or
other high-priority watersheds; (2) funding watershed coordinators and technical assistance providers to
work in local communities to promote adopting conservation and restoration measures; and
(3) monitoring water quality to assess project effectiveness and track improvements. Additionally,
conservation programs can address NPS pollution from nonindustrial private forests where a landowner
owns more than 10 acres.
In 2012, the NWQI began as a collaborative effort to enhance working relationships between the EPA,
NRCS, and states to improve water quality in agricultural watersheds by addressing nutrient, sediment,
and pathogen pollution through targeted conservation implementation. The EPA, NRCS, and states
continue to implement the NWQI in targeted priority watersheds nationwide. NRCS establishes a
minimum participation level for states of at least three planning and/or implementation watersheds or
source water protection areas enrolled in NWQI each year. States should work with and support
documentation of additional watersheds for NRCS to enroll as appropriate to maximize coordination and
-------
leveraging of NRCS resources. The NWQI promotes investments in critical watersheds over multiple
years to achieve focused implementation of conservation and restoration measures that can yield
sustained water quality improvements. From 2012 to 2022, NRCS invested over $299 million and
worked with over 6,000 farmers and ranchers to implement conservation practices on more than
I.25 million acres. In FY 2019, NRCS expanded the NWQI to include source water protection for surface
waters and groundwater.
Further discussion of NWQI expectations and considerations regarding enrollment of watersheds,
focused monitoring, and watershed planning can be found in Chapters 4.5.2 and 7.4. More detailed
information about the NWQI is available in Planning and Implementing Agricultural Water Quality
Projects Through the National Water Quality Initiative: A Practitioners Guide on the EPA's website.
The RCPP is a partner-driven approach to conservation that funds solutions to natural resource
challenges on agricultural land. Section 319 funds may be counted towards an RCPP project contribution
if the activities funded by the Section 319 project support the goals and objectives of the RCPP project,
Section 319-funded activities occur within the RCPP boundaries, and the Section 319-funded activities
occur after the RCPP award announcement and before the RCPP project expires.
II.3,1.1 Opportunities for NPSMPs
This section provides examples of how state NPS programs may engage with NRCS.
1. Amplify NRCS involvement in watershed projects and successes via NPS Success Stories.
2. Be an active participant and stakeholder in NRCS's decision-making process.
a. Work closely with NRCS to propose state watersheds for NWQI and to identify state
priorities for source waters impacted by agricultural work. Stay involved in the
Watershed Assessment/Plan development and implementation.
b. Participate in the NRCS state technical advisory committee meetings and share state
priority waterbody restoration plans.
c. Participate in local coordinating and subcommittee meetings, e.g., EQIP subcommittee.
The EQIP subcommittee is especially important instead of or in addition to the state
technical advisory meetings.
3. Discuss state water quality priorities and share data and information with NRCS.
a. Discuss priority NPS water quality issues, watersheds, and project plans and how these
priorities can overlap with NRCS priorities and available funding. This may involve
engaging with NRCS during grant application review and project deliverable
review/development when projects are agriculture related.
b. Regularly share relevant information on the state NPSMP with NRCS. For example, copy
the NRCS state conservationist/staff on emails related to the NPSMP RFPs.
c. Share usable data and information on state priority areas with NRCS where available. If
feasible, develop data layers that show critical areas for specific resource concerns and
targeted focus areas for water quality resource concerns. Provide NRCS and other
agencies with a better understanding of state water quality goals and water quality
programs.
-------
4. Explore other ways to collaborate with NRCS to advance water quality and assist NRCS.
a. Encourage state or local watershed coordinators to participate and help develop local
ranking criteria for EQIP contracts that allocate points for water quality benefits.
b. Work with NRCS on projects where a farmer has "maxed out" of funds they can access
through NRCS. A state can match the funding that is needed with Section 319 dollars.
However, any additional funding may not exceed the cost of relevant NRCS-funded
conservation practices.
c. Where appropriate and feasible, bring an NRCS liaison to the state water quality or NPS
agency.
d. Collaborate on efforts to conduct outreach to private landowners and operators.
e. Where appropriate, share innovative practice demonstration outputs and results (e.g.,
regarding design changes that might be needed in response to increased climate
variability) with the USDA Agricultural Research Service and NRCS.
5. Explore other suggestions/opportunities.
a. Become more familiar with the issues facing NRCS and the agricultural community.
b. Attend field days, local events, etc.
c. Collaborate with the state or regional association of conservation districts where
appropriate, as they often work closely with NRCS and Section 319 programs.
d. Encourage the development of statewide forums for watershed/basin coordination and
program information sharing if they do not exist.
11.3.2 Federal Emergency Management Agency
The EPA recognizes that climate change's current and future impacts affect overall public health, safety,
and water resources. Regarding NPS management, factors including rising in-stream and in-lake
temperatures, more frequent/intense storm events, and changes in precipitation and flow can
negatively affect aquatic life while increasing pollutant loading and erosion/sedimentation.
FEMA manages and funds multiple natural hazard mitigation and recovery programs. While FEMA
historically focused largely on disaster response, the agency has expanded to include pre-disaster hazard
mitigation and climate change adaptation/resilience as significant priorities. FEMA Hazard Mitigation
Assistance programs provide funding and technical support for eligible mitigation measures that help
communities recover from disasters and reduce community vulnerability to future natural hazards and
their effects. FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance promotes building resilience into urban and rural
infrastructure and mitigation solutions that promote sustainable water supplies and functioning
ecosystems.
To support community pre-disaster resilience to natural hazards and disaster events, FEMA encourages
the use of nature-based solutions. FEMA defines nature-based solutions as "sustainable planning,
design, environmental management, and engineering practices that weave natural features or processes
into the built environment to promote adaptation and resilience." Nature-based solutions is a broad
term that can include, but is not limited to, the following examples:
• GSI (bioretention, rain gardens, vegetated swales, etc.)
• Wetland construction, restoration, and/or protection
• Floodplain restoration
-------
• Land conservation/conservation easements
• Living shorelines
• Agricultural conservation practices (cover crops, no/reduced till, etc.)
The EPA and FEMA recognize the multiple "co-benefits" of implementing nature-based solutions,
including reduced flood risk, increased resilience to drought events, improved water quality, protection
of vulnerable properties, and reduced urban heat effect/protection from rising temperatures, among
others. FEMA also promotes using nature-based solutions as a lower-cost alternative to traditional
infrastructure and natural disaster protection measures.
FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance programs provide opportunities for states, local communities,
Tribes, and territories to fund nature-based solutions that provide water quality and natural hazard
mitigation co-benefits. These programs include:
• Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC): BRIC, which is FEMA's primary
competitive pre-disaster mitigation and resilience grant, provides funds to address future natural
hazards, including flooding, drought, wildfire, and extreme heat. BRIC funds can be used for on-
the-ground project implementation, nature-based solutions, capacity building, and planning.
o BRIC Direct Technical Assistance: Separate from the national competitive grant program,
FEMA provides technical support through BRIC Direct Technical Assistance for
communities in need of resources and additional capacity to advance climate resilience
planning and design of climate adaptation strategies.
• Flood Mitigation Assistance: This competitive grant provides funding for on-the-ground projects
to reduce or eliminate the risk of repetitive flood damage to buildings insured by the National
Flood Insurance Program.
• Hazard Mitigation Grant Program: This noncompetitive grant is available following a
presidentially declared disaster event. The program may be used to develop state or local HMPs
and support communities in rebuilding to reduce or mitigate future disaster losses.
• Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Post-Fire: This noncompetitive grant supports communities in
implementing hazard mitigation measures after wildfire disaster events.
• Community Rating System: This voluntary incentive program encourages community floodplain
management practices that exceed the minimum requirements of the National Flood Insurance
Program. The Community Rating System program provides discounted flood insurance premium
rates to participating communities.
To be eligible for certain types of FEMA funding, including Hazard Mitigation Assistance grants, the
Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 5121 et sea., directs state, territory, Tribal, and local governments to
develop and adopt HMPs. These plans focus on pre-disaster planning and address all natural hazards
that can impact states and communities. HMPs are "living" documents that are formally updated every
five years. Project applications for FEMA grants must be consistent with the current HMP. The planning
cycle includes the following stages:
• Goal setting and a five-year planning process
• Natural hazard identification and risk assessment
• Mitigation strategy to address identified risks
-------
• Consideration of current and potential resources and capabilities to address natural hazards
• Identification of action items to achieve the mitigation strategy goals
11.3.2.1 Opportunities for NPSMPs
FEMA's emphasis on integrated planning and using nature-based solutions provides an opportunity for
the NPSMP to bolster both NPS management and climate resilience activities. State NPSMPs are
encouraged to:
• Review the most recent state, Tribal, or local HMPs that contain activities applicable to NPSMP
priority watersheds. Assess the threats to surface water and groundwater quality, collaborate
with water quality programs, and/or include nature-based solutions listed in the current HMP
mitigation strategy. Identify any action items" or projects that will be implemented in NPS
priority areas.
• Engage with state hazard mitigation officers, state and/or local emergency managers, and state
floodplain managers to identify where NPS critical areas and mitigation priority areas may
overlap. Discuss any opportunities to align planning for nature-based solution implementation.
• Encourage the development of statewide forums for coordinating and sharing information
between programs if they do not exist.
• Coordinate with the groups listed above to engage early in the HMP update process to
understand how water quality programs/priorities and nature-based solutions will be included.
• As appropriate, include state/local hazard mitigation/floodplain management/emergency
management agencies or organizations in NPSMP plan and watershed plan development where
priority areas align.
• Understand and use language that aligns with natural hazard mitigation and resilience priorities.
• Consider future climate conditions, natural hazards, and potential emergency response needs
when developing NPS management plans and WBPs (see Chapters 3.2. 4.5.3. and 4.6.3).
• Report co-benefits of Section 319 projects (see Chapter 8.7) to natural hazard
mitigation/resilience project stakeholders.
11.3.3 Additional Federal Collaboration Opportunities
The following federal agencies' mission or activities may intersect with NPS management priorities and
offer potential opportunities for NPS program collaboration. These examples are not exhaustive and are
meant to provide a starting point for engagement. NPS program managers are encouraged to explore
these federal agencies as their mission, goals, or programs described below may support NPS
management work in their state.
• The Department of the Interior supports multiple programs that provide opportunities for
engagement on NPS issues and priorities. The Department of the Interior's BLM mission is to
sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of public lands for the use and enjoyment of present
and future generations. The BLM Land and Conservation Fund supports conservation and
recreation projects to enhance public access to public waters under the direction of BLM's
National Conservation Lands and Community Partnerships office. BLM's Aquatic Resources works
with BLM managers, Tribal, federal, state, and local governments and nongovernmental partners
to conserve and restore riparian, fisheries, and water resources on BLM-managed lands.
-------
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's mission is to manage, develop, and protect water and related
resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner. The bureau develops
strategies to manage and deliver water more efficiently and effectively to help satisfy the needs
of irrigation, municipalities, power, and the environment and to serve as a technical resource for
water users and planners. The WaterSMART program provides multiple funding opportunities
related to water resource management, including the Cooperative Watershed Management
Program, which supports watershed planning and management efforts.
NOAA's mission is to understand and predict changes in climate, weather, oceans, and coasts;
share that knowledge and information with others; and conserve and manage coastal and
marine ecosystems and resources. NOAA's Coral Reef Conservation Program supports efforts to
monitor and mitigate the impacts of land-based pollution on coral reefs, including nonpoint
sources of pollution. NOAA's Coral Program has a strong history of supporting watershed-based
planning and IMPS management project implementation, particularly in U.S. territories.
Additionally, NOAA leads robust marine HAB monitoring, forecasting, research, and outreach
and education efforts.
The USDA's Forest Service mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the
nation's forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. The Forest
Service supports research on watershed processes, functions, and conditions, with an emphasis
on the impacts of forest land on water quality and best practices for managing forest lands to
protect water quality. Additionally, the Forest Service supports the Landscape Scale Restoration
Program competitive grant that promotes collaborative, science-based restoration of priority
forest landscapes and furthers priorities identified in State Forest Action plans or equivalent
restoration strategies.
The USDA Farm Service Agency supports the Conservation Reserve Program, which provides a
yearly rental payment to farmers in the program who agree to remove environmentally
sensitive land from agricultural production and plant species that will improve environmental
health and quality.
The USFWS's mission is to work with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife,
plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. USFWS supports
tools and resources, including Recovery Plans and Biological Opinions, that can aid in developing
WBPs. USFWS also funds the National Fish Passage Program, which provides direct technical and
financial assistance to provide fish (and other aquatic organisms) passage and restore aquatic
connectivity. This program may support NPS management priorities, including removing dams
and other fish passage barriers and reconnecting streams and habitats.
The National Park Service's mission is to preserve unimpaired natural and cultural resources
and values of the National Park system for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and
future generations. The National Park Service works collaboratively to extend the benefits of
natural and cultural resource conservation and outdoor recreation throughout this country and
the world. The National Park Service's Water Resources Division works to conserve, protect, and
restore water resources in America's national parks. It provides assistance, expertise, and
guidance for aquatic ecosystem stewardship in national parks through several program areas:
fish, rivers, ocean and coastal resources, water quality, wetlands, water rights, wild and scenic
rivers, natural resource condition assessments, and information management.
-------
• The USACE's mission is to provide engineering solutions, in collaboration with our partners, to
secure our nation, energize our economy, and reduce disaster risk. The USACE Institute for
Water Resources supports research and provides technical assistance and resources on
emerging water resources trends and issues, including flood risk mitigation and shoreline
management. The USACE Environmental Program supports initiatives including invasive species
management and estuary restoration. State NPS programs have also previously collaborated
with USACE to leverage USACE water quality monitoring data (see Chapter 7.8.1).
• The U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration supports state and
local governments in the design, construction, and maintenance of the nation's highway system.
As part of this work, the Federal Highway Administration supports research and provides
resources on managing stormwater runoff along highways, including the Stochastic Empirical
Loading Dilution Model.
• The Department of Defense's Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration (REPI)
program supports cost-sharing agreements between the Military Services, other federal
agencies, state and local governments, and private conservation organizations to avoid land use
conflicts near military installations, address environmental restrictions that limit military
activities, and increase resilience to climate change. 10 U.S. Code Section 2684a(h) allows
recipients of REPI funds to use these funds as match for conservation or resilience programs,
such as Section 319 grants. If an NPSMP is interested in pursuing the use of REPI funds as a
Section 319 match, the state should work closely with its EPA regional coordinator to ensure all
REPI and Section 319 requirements are met.
-------
Appendices
-------
Appendix A. Key Components of an Effective State
Nonpoint Source Management Program
The EPA expects all states41 to review and, as appropriate, revise and update their NPS management
programs every five years or sooner if less extensive amendments are believed to be necessary. An up-
to-date, comprehensive program ensures that CWA Section 319 funding, technical support, and other
resources are directed effectively and efficiently and are used to address water quality issues at both the
state and watershed levels.
The EPA updated the following components from the 2013 Guidelines.42 Consistent with Section 319, an
effective and approvable state NPSMP plan includes the following seven components. States should
refer to these components when developing updated programs for EPA approval.
1. The state program identifies water restoration and protection goals and program strategies
(regulatory, nonregulatory, financial and technical assistance, as needed) to achieve and maintain
water quality standards. It includes relevant, current, and trackable annual milestones that best
support program implementation.
The state's long-term goals reflect a strategically focused state NPSMP designed to achieve and maintain
water quality standards and maximize water quality benefits. Goals are focused on restoring and
protecting waters by reducing and/or preventing NPS pollution statewide and on a watershed scale.
Updating the milestones every five years provides an opportunity to gauge the effectiveness of
programs, make needed mid-course corrections through an adaptive management process, and
describe outcomes and key actions expected each year. Because the NPSMP is a longer-term planning
document, the annual milestones could be more general than are expected in an annual Section 319
grant work plan. However, the annual milestones in the NPSMP should align with annual work plan
actions and be specific enough to track progress and for the EPA to determine satisfactory progress in
accordance with Section 319(h)(8).
Examples of annual milestones include anticipated improvements in water quality, reductions in water
use, achievement of water quality standards, the delivering of a certain number of NPS success stories
about restored waterbodies, implementing an expected number and type of watershed projects and
BMPs in a certain number of high-priority impaired watersheds, completion of reports, the passing of
NPS-related laws, and the establishment of NPS subprograms.
The state identifies key programs needed to achieve implementation of the measures, including, as
appropriate, nonregulatory or regulatory programs for enforcement, technical assistance, financial
assistance, education, training, technology transfer, and demonstration projects.
41 Consistent with the scope of the guidelines, this appendix applies to states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S.
territories of American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. (Hereinafter, "state" refers to states, the District of Columbia, and
territories.)
42 This is an update of Appendix A (Key Components of an Effective State Nonpoint Source Management Program}
from the E PA's 2013 Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories.
-------
The state NPSMP describes its approach to addressing the twin demands of restoring waters that the
state has identified as impaired by NPS pollution and preventing new water quality problems from
current and reasonably foreseeable future NPS impacts, especially for waters that currently meet water
quality standards. The state's program describes how it will set priorities and align resources between
the restoration and protection of healthy waters based on their water quality challenges and
circumstances. In addition, the state incorporates existing baseline requirements established by other
applicable federal or state laws to the extent they are relevant.
For states and territories with approved CNPCPs under CZARA, key commitments to implementation
timelines within these CNPCPs should be included in the schedule of annual milestones articulated in
state/territory NPSMPs. Incorporating program elements required by CZARA into state/territory
NPSMPs ensures that CNPCPs are integrated into the overall approaches to reduce NPS pollution and
that the CNPCPs are being meaningfully implemented; see Chapter 7.3 for example milestones. States
should continue incorporating relevant milestones to address ongoing NPS challenges in their coastal
nonpoint management areas.
2. The state program identifies the primary categories and subcategories of NPS pollution and a
process for prioritizing impaired and unimpaired waters and identify how national and state
priorities may align.
The state identifies the primary categories and subcategories causing water quality impairments,
threats, and risks across the state. The state may include emerging issues, such as pollutants and/or
categories of NPS pollution, which require additional data to be collected to fully understand the scope
and magnitude of the concern.
The state identifies waters impaired by NPS pollution based on currently available information (e.g., in
reports under CWA sections 305(b), 319(a), 303(d), and 320, and in assessments and analyses of
changing land uses within the state). The state may also identify important unimpaired waters that are
threatened or otherwise at risk from NPS pollution. The state NPSMP plan includes a process to assign
priority and progressively address identified waters and watersheds by conducting more detailed
watershed assessments and developing and implementing WBPs.
Factors used by the state to assign priority to waters and watersheds may include a variety of
considerations, for example:
• Human health considerations, including contact recreation and/or source water protection for
drinking water.
• Ecosystem integrity, including ecological risk and stressors.
• Beneficial uses of the water.
• The value of the watershed or groundwater area to the public.
• The vulnerability of surface water or groundwater to additional environmental degradation and
climate change impacts.
• The likelihood of achieving demonstrable environmental results.
• The degree of understanding of the causes of impairment and the solutions capable of restoring
the water.
• The adequacy of existing water quality monitoring data or future monitoring commitments.
-------
• The degree to which TMDL allocations assigned to point sources depends on achieving NPS
reductions.
• The extent of coordination with other federal agencies; states; local, public, and private
agencies/organizations; and other stakeholders to coordinate resources and actions.
• The degree to which pollution can be reduced in overburdened communities and/or the degree
to which projects will address water quality problems in disadvantaged communities.
• The readiness and capacity to proceed among stakeholders, including other federal, state, and
local agencies or organizations.
When prioritizing protection efforts, states may wish to consider the following scenarios for prioritizing
the protection of healthy waters:
• Outstanding National Resource Waters or other state-defined categories of high-quality waters.
• Watersheds currently supporting healthy aquatic ecosystems, as identified in assessments of
watershed function and structure (e.g., the EPA's Healthy Watersheds Integrated Assessments).
• Waters and watersheds identified as protection priorities in the CWA Section 305(b)/303(d)
integrated report.
• Watersheds or portions of watersheds with unique, valuable, or threatened species or the
critical aquatic habitats of these species.
• Waters and watershed areas (including groundwater where appropriate) that serve as source
water for a public drinking water supply.
• Healthy waters in watersheds where it complements efforts to restore NPS-impaired waters.
• Waters near geographic areas where rapid land use development is occurring.
• Waters where data trends indicate water quality degradation is occurring.
• Restored waters that require continued water quality assessment and maintenance of BMPs to
ensure unimpaired status.
• Watersheds that contribute high nutrient loads to downstream waters.
The state links its prioritization and implementation strategy to other programs and efforts, such as
those listed in components 1 and 4. In establishing priorities for groundwater activities, the state
considers wellhead protection areas, groundwater recharge areas, and zones of significant
groundwater/surface water interaction, including drinking water sources.
Different approaches for prioritizing waters for restoration and protection are available, including
several tools offered by the EPA. For example, the EPA's Recovery Potential Screening Tool is useful for
comparing the restorability of impaired waters across various watersheds. It can also be used to
determine protection priorities for unimpaired waters and now also includes social demographics. The
EPA developed and maintains the CyanoHAB story map as a user-friendly, interactive resource. The story
map compiles monthly updates on state-issued recreational waterbody and drinking water health
advisories due to cyanobacterial harmful algal blooms (cyanoHABs) from across the country. Another
tool is the EPA's Cyanobacteria Assessment Network (CyAN) mobile application, a customizable app that
currently provides access to cyanobacterial bloom satellite data for over 2,000 of the largest lakes and
reservoirs nationwide. Bloom Watch is another resource that uses crowd-sourced data to find and
report potential cyanobacteria blooms. The EPA's Nutrient web page also offers several resources.
-------
Climate Change: The NPSMP should identify the primary categories and subcategories of NPS pollution
that will be exacerbated by changing climate conditions, such as the increased likelihood of natural
disasters (drought, wildfires, excessive heat, and storm frequency and intensity), depending on a state's
climactic zones. The program can also prioritize areas or approaches for their potential co-benefits, such
as improving water quality while also mitigating natural hazard impacts, increasing soil health, and
improving filtration approaches.
Equity: Incorporate a strategy to ensure equitable access to the benefits of NPSMP efforts for all
communities. Depending on prior work in a state NPS program, this might range from simply conducting
a preliminary assessment and identifying barriers to actively implementing engagement efforts to
evaluating progress to address barriers.
Several screening tools are available to assist when considering factors related to climate change and
advancing equity for disadvantaged communities. Tools include the Climate and Economic Screening
Tool (CEJST)—with a preference for the screening factors for water/wastewater, climate, and legacy
pollutant-burdened communities; the EJSCREEN Supplementary Index; and the Recovery Potential
Screening Tool. The national NPS Program has worked with some states to develop a best practices
approach for using the Recovery Potential Screening Tool in analyzing Section 319 work and
demographic indicators. Some states also have their own prioritization approach to consider stressors
related to climate change and advancing equity. To qualify for use of Section 319 funds, those
prioritizations should be consistent with civil rights laws. The national NPS Program will continue to
update analysis, barrier, and action approaches on its NPS equity resources page.
3. The state program identifies management measures (i.e., systems of practices) that will be
undertaken to reduce pollutant loadings resulting from each category, subcategory, or particular
nonpoint source identified in component 2 above. The measures should also consider the impact of
the BMPs on groundwater quality.
Understanding the BMPs that are best suited for the state's pollutants, climate and evolving
environmental conditions is essential for developing a strategy to address NPS pollution in varied
landscapes. Awareness of historical effectiveness and landowners' willingness to implement BMPs is
also important when selecting a suite of potential BMPs as part of a broader statewide or watershed
strategy. Establishing preliminary suites of BMPs supports the development of a more-focused local
nine-element watershed plan. Several resources are available to support establishing suites of BMPs,
such as the EPA's Critical Source Area Identification And BMP Selection: Supplement To Watershed
Planning Handbook, the EPA's 2001-2007 NPS pollution National Management Measures guidance
documents; and the NRCS's Conservation Practice Standards (standards applicable to water quality).
Strategies to address NPS pollutants should consider any BMP design changes that might be needed in
response to increased climate variability (e.g., increased storm intensity, drought, wildfires, rising
temperature). For example, rising water temperatures can contribute to increased algal growth and
potential cyanobacteria blooms. In these cases, a state may consider implementing BMPs that
specifically target nutrient or temperature reduction in affected areas.
In addition, states are encouraged to implement nature-based solutions that reduce NPS pollutants and
help mitigate the impact of natural hazards. For example, restoring or protecting floodplains can reduce
NPS pollutant delivery to waterbodies, improve overall aquatic habitat conditions, and trap and control
-------
runoff from storms to mitigate high-flow events and reduce flood risk downstream. States may also wish
to include the targeted ability to respond to natural disaster emergencies that threaten water quality.
4. The state uses both watershed projects and well-integrated regional or statewide programs to
restore and protect waters, achieve water quality benefits, and advance any relevant climate
resiliency goals.
The state has the flexibility to design its NPSMP in a manner best suited to achieve and maintain water
quality standards. The state may achieve water quality results through a combination of watershed
approaches and statewide programs, including regulatory authorities. The state NPSMP emphasizes a
watershed management approach that advances equitable access to water quality benefits for
underserved communities. The watershed approach provides a science- and policy-based framework to
address water quality problems in a holistic manner. It balances local, state, and federal objectives and
allows for cost-sharing and distribution of effort among diverse stakeholder groups.
While the NPSMP plan is expected to identify and address NPS pollution in impaired waters, the NPS
pollutant loadings will likely be influenced by changing climate conditions—making restoration or
protection under future climate scenarios more difficult. Accounting for climate change co-benefits
expected from common NPS restoration measures (e.g., riparian restoration activities yield co-benefits
such as carbon sequestration, flood resilience, and groundwater recharge) in the NPSMP plan, the state
could measure positive progress during restoration activities even if the long-term impacts of a changing
climate extend beyond the timeline for initial restoration goals.
The state NPSMP is well integrated with other relevant programs to restore and protect water quality,
aligning the priority-setting processes and resources to increase efficiency and environmental results.
These include, but are not limited to, the following programs, as applicable:
• CWA Section 303(d) assessments and TMDLs
• CWSRF and DWSRF
• USDA Farm Bill conservation programs (e.g., NWQI, EQIP, RCPP, Conservation Stewardship
Program, Agricultural Conservation Easement Program)
• State agricultural conservation
• State nutrient framework or strategy source water protection
• Climate change planning and resiliency
• FEMA- Hazard Mitigation and Climate Resilience
• Point sources (including stormwater, confined animal feeding operations, and enforcement of
federally permitted facilities)
• Groundwater
• U.S. Geological Survey
• State and Tribal wetlands protection program
• NEP
• Geographic programs
• Coastal nonpoint pollution control program under CZARA
• Pesticide management
-------
• Forestry, both federal (U.S. Forest Service) and state
• USACE programs
• BLM
• Other state, Tribal and federal natural resource and environmental management programs, as
needed
The state makes a strong effort to coordinate and leverage programs that have significant potentially
available resources to support NPS activities, such as USDA NRCS conservation programs, FEMA natural
hazard mitigation and recovery programs, and EPA CWSRF. For example, a state NPSMP clearly identifies
processes to incorporate some of the significant resources of the CWSRF program for eligible NPS
activities. The state NPSMP plan explains how NPS projects fit into the state's prioritization scheme for
CWSRF funding and describes state efforts to increase the use of the state CWSRF for the NPSMP. If
there are barriers to the prioritization of NPS projects, the state NPSMP describes efforts to coordinate
with the CWSRF program and potential future steps to encourage NPS projects.
If, in reviewing federal programs, the state identifies federal lands and activities that are not managed
consistently with state NPS program objectives, the state may seek EPA assistance to help resolve issues
at the federal agency level. Such federal programs include the land management programs of the BLM
and the U.S. Forest Service, USDA's conservation programs, and the USACE's waterway programs, as
well as development projects and financial assistance programs that are, or may be, inconsistent with
the state's NPSMP. Where appropriate, the EPA will work with other federal agencies to enhance their
understanding of the significance of NPS pollution and assist in resolving issues that arise between the
state and federal agencies with respect to federal consistency. As the EPA region becomes aware of
these issues, it will work with the national NPS Program to improve consistency among federal
programs.
5. The state identifies and enhances its collaboration with appropriate federal, state, interstate,
Tribal, and regional agencies as well as local entities (including conservation districts, private sector
groups, utilities, and citizen groups) that will be utilized to implement the state program.
Furthermore, the state supports capacity-building in disadvantaged, underserved, or overburdened
communities.
The state NPSMP works collaboratively with partners and other key NPS entities to implement NPS
control measures in priority watersheds. To form and sustain partnerships, the state may use a variety
of formal and informal mechanisms, such as memoranda of agreement, letters of support, cooperative
projects, the sharing and combining of funds, and meetings to share information and ideas. Creating and
maintaining this cooperative approach is supported through formal engagement with interagency
collaborative teams, NPS task forces, and representative advisory groups, as well as through more
informal but ongoing NPS program coordination and outreach efforts.
The state works to ensure its local partners and grantees have the capacity to effectively carry out
watershed implementation projects funded to support its NPSMP. To address barriers to increased
equity, state programs can incorporate the additional flexibility provided in these guidelines to use
project funds to support watershed plan development and capacity building in disadvantaged
communities. States can also incorporate capacity development by supporting local watershed
-------
coordinators and leveraging community resources, such as local minority-serving institutions,
community organizations, and local businesses.
The state seeks public involvement and comments on significant program changes from diverse sources
such as:
• Local, regional, state, interstate, and federal agencies
• Tribal NPS programs and Tribal government representatives, as well as other Indigenous
Peoples, including, for example, Indigenous and Tribal community-based organizations and
individual Native Americans.
• Public interest groups
• Industry representatives
• Municipalities and public water systems
• Academic institutions
• Private landowners and producers
• Concerned citizens and others, as appropriate
Engaging with a wide range of stakeholders ensures that environmental objectives are well-integrated
with economic stability and other social and cultural objectives.
6. The state manages and implements its NPSMP efficiently and effectively, including necessary
financial management.
The state implements its NPSMP to solve water quality problems as effectively and expeditiously as
possible, report progress in meeting milestones and improving water quality (Section 319(h)ll), and
make satisfactory progress each year by meeting its schedule of annual milestones (per Section
319(b)(2)(C) and Section 319(h)(8); see also Appendix D of this document). To ensure that priority water
quality problems are addressed in a cost-effective and efficient way, the state program includes a
process for identifying water restoration and protection priorities and deploys resources strategically to
address those priorities. The state's work plans for watershed projects and statewide activities are well-
designed, with sufficient detail to ensure effective implementation. The state implements its activities
and projects, including all tasks and outputs, in a timely manner. The state has established systems to
ensure it meets its reporting obligations and uses the EPA's GRTS effectively. The state employs
sufficient staff and appropriate programmatic and financial systems to manage Section 319 funds for
maximum water quality benefits while ensuring that Section 319 dollars and nonfederal match are used
efficiently and consistently with legal obligations. The state ensures that Section 319 funds complement
and leverage funds available for technical and financial assistance from other federal sources and
agencies, including funding through CWSRF, DWSRF, CWA Section 604(b), USDA NRCS, and others.
7. The state evaluates its NPSMP using environmental and functional measures of success and revises
its NPSMP plan at least every five years.
The state establishes appropriate measures of progress in meeting programmatic and water quality
goals and objectives identified in key component 1 above. The state assesses the program's
effectiveness in meeting its goals and objectives, revises its activities, and appropriately tailors its annual
work plans based on a review of the monitoring/evaluation strategies. State program goals and
-------
objectives are revised as necessary to reflect progress or problems encountered, strategies towards
achieving the goals, and indicators to measure progress. The state should use the five-year update to
address evolving issues such as changing priorities, updated science, or natural hazard impacts on state
NPS programs. Updating the milestones every five years provides an opportunity to gauge the
effectiveness of programs, make needed mid-course corrections and describe outcomes and key actions
expected each year. For example, if an emerging contaminant is identified as a potential threat, the
state can update its NPSMP plan to include strategies to address the contaminant. The state should
include and be prepared to deploy all potential strategies and management approaches in its
management program to ensure issues can be readily addressed as they arise (e.g., natural hazard
response, presence of emerging contaminants, changes in state priorities).
The state evaluates its NPSMP using environmental and functional measures of success. Staff from the
state's NPSMP, TMDL program, and other water quality-related programs collaborate on evaluation
strategies to ascertain the following:
• Restored waters/NPS impairments eliminated (i.e., water quality impairments removed) and
other documentable water quality improvements and successes.
• Section 319-funded watershed projects with significant NPS pollutant load reduction.
• The number of remaining NPS-impaired waters.
• The number of remaining NPS-threatened, healthy waters.
• Any emerging NPS issues (e.g., emerging NPS pollutants or categories of concern).
• Additional data needs.
The state integrates monitoring and evaluation strategies with ongoing federal natural resource
inventories and monitoring programs.
The state's annual report, as required under Section 319(h)(ll), characterizes the state's progress in
meeting annual milestones, implementing BMPs and watershed projects, and, to the extent information
is available, achieving reductions in NPS pollutant loadings and improvements in water quality resulting
from program implementation (i.e., achieving water quality goals).
Water quality improvements are a functional measure of program success and are also a national NPS
Program reporting measure, as reported through the NPS Success Stories. NPS Success Stories and other
significant milestones captured in annual reports and interim metrics are described in Chapter 8.7.
States can use feedback and findings from their EPA region's satisfactory progress determinations to
support critical evaluation and strategize program improvements.
The state NPSMP is reviewed and revised at a minimum every five years. The revision is not necessarily a
comprehensive update unless significant program changes warrant a complete revision; instead, an
update targets the outdated parts of the program. At a minimum, this includes updating annual
milestones and the schedule for program implementation to ensure they remain current and oriented
toward achieving water quality goals.
-------
Appendix B. Minimum Elements of a Watershed-Based
Plan
Although many different elements may be included in a watershed plan, the EPA has identified nine
minimum elements that are critical for improving water quality. In general, the EPA requires that nine-
element WBPs be developed before implementing project(s) using Section 319 watershed project
funding. In many cases, state and local groups have already developed watershed plans and strategies
for their rivers, lakes, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and coastal waters that address some or all the nine
elements. If these existing plans contain all nine elements listed below, they can be used to fulfill the
WBP requirement for watershed projects. If the existing plans do not address all nine elements or do not
include the entire watershed planning area, they can still provide valuable components to inform,
develop, and update WBPs. See Chapter 4.5 for more details on leveraging existing plans. For more
detailed information on developing WBPs, please see the EPA's Resources for Watershed Planning.
including the Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters (EPA 841-B-
08-002, March 2008).
Note: The EPA recognizes that in select cases (see Chapter 4.6). alternatives to WBPs can provide an
effective roadmap to achieve the water quality goals of a Section 319-funded watershed project.
The Nine Elements of Watershed-based Plans
The nine elements of WBPs and short explanations of how each element fits in the context of the
broader WBP are provided below. Although listed as a through /', they do not necessarily occur
sequentially.
The level of detail needed to address the nine elements of WBPs will vary in proportion to the
homogeneity of land use types and the variety and complexity of pollution sources. For example,
densely developed urban and suburban watersheds often have multiple sources of pollution from
historical and current activities (Superfund sites, point sources, solid waste disposal, leakage from road
salt storage, oil handling, stormwater-caused erosion, road maintenance, etc.) in addition to some
agricultural activities. WBPs will be more complex in these cases than in predominantly rural settings.
Therefore, plans for urban and suburban watersheds might need to be developed and implemented at a
smaller scale than watersheds with agricultural lands of a similar character.
Element a. The identification of causes of impairment and pollution sources
What does this mean ?
This element includes the identification of the causes of impairment and pollutant sources or
groups of similar sources that need to be controlled to achieve the desired load reductions and
any other goals identified in the watershed plan. Sources that need to be controlled should be
identified at the significant subcategory level along 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).
-------
Your WBP source assessment should encompass the watershed of the impaired waterbody(ies)
and include a map(s) of the watershed that locates the major causes and source(s) of
impairment in the planning area. To address these impairments, you will set goals to meet (or
exceed) the appropriate water quality standards for pollutant(s) that threaten or impair the
physical, chemical, or biological integrity of the watershed covered in the plan.
This element usually includes an accounting of significant point and nonpoint sources in addition
to the natural background levels that make up the pollutant loads causing problems in the
watershed. If a TMDL(s) exists for the waters under consideration, this element may be
adequately addressed in those documents. If not, you will need to conduct a similar analysis
(which may involve mapping, modeling, monitoring, and field assessments) to link the sources of
pollution and the extent to which they cause the water to exceed relevant water quality
standards.
Element b. An estimate of the load reductions expected from management measures.
What does this mean?
Using the existing source loads estimated for element o, you will determine the reductions
needed to meet water quality standards. After identifying the various management measures
that will help to reduce the pollutant loads (see element c below), you will estimate the load
reductions expected as a result of implementing these management measures while recognizing
the difficulty in precisely predicting the performance of management measures over time.
Estimates should be provided at the same scale and scope as described in element a (e.g., the
total load reduction expected for dairy cattle feedlots, row crops, eroded streambanks, or
implementation of a specific stormwater management practice). For waters in which TMDLs
have been approved or are being developed, the plan should identify and incorporate the
TMDLs; the plan needs to be designed to achieve the applicable load allocations in the TMDLs.
Applicable loads for downstream waters should be included so that the water delivered to a
downstream or adjacent segment does not exceed the water quality standards for the pollutant
of concern at the water segment boundary. The estimate should account for reductions in
pollutant loads from point and nonpoint sources identified in the TMDL as necessary to attain
the applicable water quality standards.
Element c. A description of the NPS management measures needed to be implemented to achieve
load reductions in element b and a description of the critical areas in which those measures will be
needed to implement this plan.
What does this mean?
The plan should describe the management measures needed to achieve the load reductions
estimated under element b and any additional pollution prevention goals outlined in the
watershed plan (e.g., habitat conservation and protection). Pollutant loads will vary even within
land use types, so the plan should also identify the critical areas43 in which those measures will
be needed to implement the plan. This description should be detailed enough to guide needed
implementation activities throughout the watershed and can be greatly enhanced by developing
43 Critical areas are those producing disproportionately high pollutant loads. For more information, see the
Critical Source Area identification and BMP Selection: Supplement to the Watershed Planning Handbook, July 2018.
-------
an accompanying map with priority areas and BMPs. Thought should also be given to the
possible use of measures that protect important habitats (e.g., wetlands, vegetated buffers,
forest corridors) and other nonpolluting watershed areas. In this way, waterbodies would not
continue degrading in some watershed areas while being restored in others.
Element d. Estimate 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.
What does this mean ?
You should estimate the financial and technical assistance needed to implement the entire plan,
including implementation and long-term operation and maintenance of management measures,
information/education activities, monitoring, and evaluation activities. You should also
document which relevant authorities might play a role in implementing the plan. The plan's
sponsors should consider the use of federal, state, local, and private funds or other resources
that might be available to assist in implementing the plan. Shortfalls between the needs and the
available resources should be identified and addressed in the plan.
Element e. An information and education component that is used to enhance public understanding of
the plan and encourage early and continued participation in selecting, designing, and implementing
the NPS management measures.
What does this mean ?
The plan should include an information/education component that identifies the education and
outreach activities or actions that will support implementing the plan. These activities may
support stakeholder involvement efforts and the adoption and long-term operation and
maintenance of BMPs.
Element f. A schedule for implementing the NPS management measures identified in this plan that is
reasonably expeditious.
What does this mean ?
You should include a schedule for implementing the management measures outlined in your
watershed plan. The schedule should reflect the milestones you develop in element g, and you
should begin implementation as soon as possible. Examples of activities that can start right away
include conducting baseline monitoring and outreach for implementing water quality projects. It
is important that schedules not be "shelved" for lack of funds or program authorities; instead,
they should identify steps towards obtaining the needed funds as feasible.
Element g. A description of interim measurable milestones for determining whether NPS management
measures or other control actions are being implemented.
What does this mean ?
These milestones will be used to track the implementation of the management measures, such
as whether they are being implemented according to the schedule outlined in element/. In
contrast, element h (see below) will develop criteria to measure the management measures'
effectiveness (e.g., via documenting improvements in water quality). For example, a watershed
plan may include milestones for a problem pesticide found at high levels in a stream. An initial
milestone may be a 30% reduction in the measured stream concentrations of that pesticide
-------
after five years and 50% of the users in the watershed have implemented integrated pest
management. The next milestone could be a 40% reduction in the measured stream
concentrations after seven years and 80% of pesticide users are implementing integrated pest
management. The final goal, which achieves the water quality standard for that stream, may
require a 50% reduction in 10 years. These waypoints let the watershed managers document
incremental progress and know if they are on track to meet their goals or need to re-evaluate
the treatment levels or timelines.
Element 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 toward attaining water quality standards.
What does this mean ?
As projects are implemented in the watershed, you will need water quality benchmarks to track
progress toward attaining water quality standards. The criteria in element h (not to be confused
with the water quality criteria in state regulations) are the benchmarks or waypoints to measure
against through monitoring. These interim targets can be direct measurements (e.g., fecal
coliform concentrations, nutrient loads) or indirect indicators of load reduction (e.g., number of
beach closings, shellfish bed openings). These criteria should reflect the time it takes to
implement pollution control measures and for water quality indicators to respond, including lag
times (e.g., water quality response influenced by groundwater sources that move slowly; the
extra time it takes for sediment-bound pollutants to break down, degrade, or otherwise be
isolated from the water column). You should also indicate how you will determine whether the
WBP needs to be revised if interim targets are not met. These revisions could involve changing
BMPs, updating the loading analyses, and reassessing the time it takes for pollution
concentrations to respond to treatment.
Element i. A monitoring component to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation efforts over
time, measured against the criteria established under element h.
What does this mean ?
The WBP should include a monitoring component to determine whether progress is being made
toward attaining or maintaining the applicable water quality standards for the waterbody(ies)
addressed in the plan. The monitoring program should be fully integrated with the established
schedule and interim milestone criteria identified above. The monitoring component should be
designed to assess progress in achieving loading reductions and meeting water quality
standards. Watershed-scale monitoring can be used to measure the effects of multiple
programs, projects, and trends overtime. Instream monitoring does not have to be conducted
for individual BMPs unless that type of monitoring is particularly relevant to the project.
-------
Appendix C. State-by-State CWA Section 319 Allocation
This appendix sets forth, for each state, its percentage of the total allocation of CWA 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 Section 319 funding appropriated by Congress for the year in question.
2. Subtract the current Tribal Section 319 set-aside from the total Section 319 appropriation for
distribution to Indian Tribes. Section 518(f) allows the EPA to provide up to one-third of 1% of
the total Section 319 appropriation to Tribes. However, in light of the increasing number of
Section 319-eligible Tribes and the effects of the statutory cap in limiting Tribes' ability to
establish and maintain NPS programs, since FY 2000 Congress has authorized the removal of the
statutory cap on the Tribal Section 319 set-aside in its annual appropriations language. In FY
2023, the EPA set aside 7.6% of the annual Section 319 appropriation to Tribes and articulated a
long-term target of increasing the Tribal Section 319 set-aside to 12% to meet Tribal NPS
program needs more fully.
Multiply the funds remaining after step 2 by the applicable state percentage shown in Table C-l.
Table C-l. State-by-State CWA Section 319 Allocation
Percentage
Region 1
Connecticut 0.98
Maine 1.17
Massachusetts 1.36
New Hampshire 0.7 6
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
-------
Percentage
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 0.2 7
Marianas 0.27
Region 10
Alaska 1.22
Idaho 1.24
Oregon 1.39
Washington 1.92
-------
Appendix D. Guidance and Checklist for Determining
the Progress of State NPSMPs and the Performance of
CWA Section 319 Grants
EPA regions shall review each state's progress in implementing its NPSMP and provide written
documentation of this progress. Specifically, before approving funding recommendations for the award
of CWA Section 319 funds, the EPA regions shall address all elements in this checklist covering the prior
fiscal year using reports submitted annually (see Chapter 9.2). The checklist applies to all states that
receive funds from Section 319; however, section 5 below applies only to states that include these funds
in PPGs. Note that the Rate of Expenditure analysis described in section 4(B) below is not required for
Section 319 funds incorporated into a PPG.
The checklist is designed to document the extent to which each state meets foundational aspects of
program progress and Section 319 grant management requirements, including those specified in binding
Section 319 grant guidelines available at the EPA's CWA Section 319 Grant: Current Guidance website.
These aspects should be assessed as a whole in making a determination, with each response
constituting information or a line of evidence that will lead to a decision based on the EPA region's best
professional judgment. Negative responses to a question may be supplemented with a justification or
description of a corrective action underway or necessary. Yes-or-no questions should typically begin
with "yes" or "no" responses (and sparingly with other responses such as "n/a," "unknown," or
"somewhat"); additional succinct assessments or explanations are strongly encouraged where helpful,
especially for "no" and "n/a" responses. In only one question in the checklist—question l(A)(ii)—does a
"no" response constitute a de facto finding of unsatisfactory progress per Section 319(h)(8).
The final determination of the progress of a state's NPSMP is to be made by the EPA regional administrator
(but will more typically be performed by the EPA regional water division director through redelegation).
The checklist for this determination should be completed by the appropriate regional NPSMP staff
(typically, the Section 319 grant project officer for non-PPG awards and the Section 319 NPSMP
coordinator for states that include Section 319 grant funds in a PPG). A transmittal letter or memo for each
determination shall include a summary of any significant outstanding concerns and notice of a corrective
action plan if needed. Each state NPSMP manager shall receive a copy of this transmittal letter/memo and
the completed checklist, with a copy to the state's water division director. The completed checklist and
transmittal letter/memo may be attached to the grant funding recommendation.
1. Meeting Statutory and Regulatory Requirements and Demonstrating Water Quality Results
A. Section 319(h)(8) requires the EPA to determine if a state has made satisfactory progress in
meeting a schedule of annual milestones to implement its NPSMP.
i) Does the state's NPSMP plan include relevant, up-to-date, and trackable annual milestones
for program implementation? If not, in what document(s) is this schedule located?
ii) For the preceding fiscal year, has the state reported its progress in the annual report required
under Section 319(h)(ll) in meeting its milestone(s) and demonstrated satisfactory progress
in meeting its schedule of milestone(s)? Briefly elaborate. (If no, in accordance with Section
319(h)(8), the Section 319 grant award for the coming year cannot be awarded.)
-------
B. Each state must report the reductions in NPS pollutant loading and improvements in water
quality on an annual basis.
i) Where supporting empirical evidence is available, has the state reported improvements in
water quality that have occurred in the prior fiscal year resulting from the implementation
of its NPSMP and/or previous years' Section 319(h) grant work plans (e.g., reporting a
water quality improvement success story or other improvements such as shellfish bed and
beach openings that have not yet led to the attainment of water quality standards)?
ii) Did the state meet its annual commitment/target/goal (if any) to fully or partially restore
prioritized NPS-impaired waters on the CWA Section 303(d) list? If not, have Section
303(d)-listed waters shown progress towards achieving water quality goals? Have waters
not on the Section 303(d) list shown ecological restoration?
2. GRTS Reporting:
For this question, it is sufficient to report on the results of previously conducted post-award grants
monitoring. No additional monitoring may be needed.
A. To ensure that the state meets the reporting requirements in Section 319(h)(ll), did the state
enter all mandated data elements into GRTS (including geolocational tags where available) for
all applicable projects in the previous Section 319 grant award, including load reductions for all
active projects that have NPS reduction goals for nutrients or sediment? Load reductions
should be entered for any reporting period after the first year that BMPs were installed/
implemented.
3. Focus on Watershed-Based Implementation
For this question, it is sufficient to document the results of previous findings (i.e., regional
observations regarding WBP implementation in review of active grant work plans.
A. Is the state implementing nine-element WBPs—or approved alternative plans—at required
grant expenditure levels in accordance with the EPA's guidelines for Section 319(h) grants? If
not, please explain.
B. Or, has the state provided state funding for watershed projects equal to its total Section 319
grant (see Chapter 6.6 leverage exemption)? If no, please explain.
4. Ensuring Fiscal Accountability
For this section, it is sufficient to briefly report on the results of previously conducted grants
management and oversight required of all grants.
A. Tracking and Reporting. For all active Section 319(h) grants, using existing post-award
monitoring or best professional judgment:
i) For states subawarding Section 319 funds to other entities, is the state's RFP process
efficient and timely for selecting and funding projects within the work plan timeframe?
ii) Did the state obligate all the Section 319(h) funds in the previous year's award within one
year per the current Section 319 grant guidelines?
-------
B. Rate of Expenditures. For categorical grants, include and examine a summary of expenditures
for all open Section 319 grant awards listing the following: state; grant #; fiscal year; project
period; grant award amount; balance (unliquidated obligation); percent unliquidated
obligation. See the example below, which contains information readily available through
Compass, the EPA's financial data warehouse (Table D-l). This information could also be
obtained from other EPA tools, such as GRTS or the Post Award Baseline Tracking Tool. Include
a state total of the grant award amount, a balance, and the percent unliquidated obligation.
Please reference the source and date of information used to answer the question below. Note:
This analysis is not required for Section 319 funds incorporated into a PPG.
i) Relying on best professional judgment, do the figures in the Rate of Expenditures chart
substantially match the expected drawdown rates or the negotiated outlay strategy from
the associated grant work plan schedules? If not, briefly explain.
Table D-l. Example of CWA Section 319(h) Funds, Rates of Expenditures (Unliquidated
Obligations)
Based on Compass Federal Data Warehouse Online on
Grant Award
Grant # FY Project Period Amount Balance (ULO) % ULO
SA
C9-97956808
08
07/01/18 - 06/30/23
$2,699,664
$89,089
3.3%
SA
C9-97956809
09
07/01/19 - 06/30/24
$2,759,386
$482,893
17.5%
SA
C9-97956810
10
07/01/20 - 06/30/25
$2,608,349
$957,264
36.7%
SA
C9-97956811
11
07/01/21-06/30/26
$2,257,140
$938,970
41.6%
SA
C9-97956812
12
07/01/22 - 06/30/27
$2,257,732
$1,763,289
78.1%
SA
Total:
$12,582,271
$4,231,505
33.6%
Notes: SA = state abbreviation; FY = fiscal year; ULO = unliquidated obligation
5. Performance Partnership Grants Considerations
For states that include Section 319 funds in PPGs, briefly report on the following:
A. Has the state clearly identified activities in the PPG work plan to be funded by the Section 319
grant and followed the goals, objectives, and measures of the national NPS Program guidelines
and priorities in implementing its NPSMP? If not, did the state negotiate with the EPA region to
develop a work plan that differs significantly from the national NPS Program manager
guidance? (If yes, the EPA region was required to consult with the national NPS Program
manager.) Please explain.
B. Using best professional judgment, has the state adequately documented progress that is
consistent with its listed priorities and expected environmental outputs/outcomes in the PPG
work plan?
-------
6. Identifying and Addressing Performance Issues/Progress Concerns
A. Considering issues itemized on this checklist, briefly summarize any significant outstanding
Section 319 grant performance issues or progress concerns, including recommendation(s) for
corrective action(s). For states with out-of-date NPSMPs or schedules of milestones, the EPA
regions are to ensure that forthcoming Section 319 grant awards are contingent on completing
updates to these programs or milestones.
B. Are there other significant outstanding Section 319 grant performance issues or progress
concerns that were not identified through this checklist? If so, please describe, including any
recommendation(s) for corrective action(s), as appropriate.
C. For any element in the checklist above that is incomplete or not satisfactory, please include a
description of the proposed tasks to be completed with a clear schedule for inclusion in the
next grant award's terms and conditions to ensure satisfactory progress.
-------
Appendix E. Nationally Consistent Programmatic CWA
Section 319 Terms and Conditions
A. General and Reporting Requirements
The recipient agrees to comply with all requirements required by EPA regulation
(40 CFR part 35. 2 CFR part 200, 2 CFR part 1500), sections 319(h)( 10) and (11) of the CWA, and
by the Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories (2024). Failure
to comply with the above-referenced requirements may result in a disruption of grantee funding
and/or early termination of the grant agreement in accordance with 2 CFR part 200.
A.l. Project Reports
The recipient agrees to submit reports for all projects identified in the approved work plan,
including those performed by the recipient, subgrantees, contractors, and through interagency
agreements. Reports shall include a comparison of actual accomplishments to the
outputs/outcomes established in the work plan for that period, the reasons for slippage if those
outputs/outcomes could not be met, and any other pertinent information, such as cost
overruns. Reports are due annually/semiannually on insert date each year until the grant is
closed. Reports should be submitted in GRTS. In accordance with 2 CFR 200.329, the recipient
agrees to inform the EPA as soon as problems, delays, or adverse conditions arise that will
materially impair the ability to meet the outputs/outcomes specified in the assistance
agreement work plan. In addition, reports should include three essential elements:
• Strategic Plan Goal 5.0,
• Strategic Plan Objective 5.2, and
• Work plan commitments, plus a timeframe.
A final project report is due to the EPA project officer within 120 days after the end of the
Assistance Agreement Project Period. The report must describe project activities and identify
and discuss the extent to which project goals have been achieved and the amount of funds
spent on the project. The report should emphasize successes, failures, lessons learned, and load
reduction data, and it should include any available water quality and habitat data demonstrating
project results. Acceptance and approval of final project reports is the responsibility of the
recipient. Final project reports will be provided electronically as attachments in GRTS and
submitted in hard copy if required. In addition, the GRTS database should be updated to reflect
the project status as complete.
A.2. Annual Nonpoint Source Program Report
The recipient agrees to provide information required under Section 319(h)(ll)(B) for the
purpose of annual reporting on progress under the state's NPSMP. The Section 319 Annual
Program Report will be due by insert date. At a minimum, the report shall contain a summary of
progress, including rationale/evidence, in meeting the schedule of milestones in the approved
management program and reductions in NPS pollutant loading and improvements in water
quality that have resulted from implementing the NPSMP. Failure to submit the annual NPSMP
report may affect the recipient's eligibility for future Section 319 grant funding.
-------
A.3. Grants Reporting and Tracking System
The recipient shall enter all mandated data elements into GRTS for NPS projects funded under
Section 319 of the CWA and any other data and/or information required by the EPA or according
to deadlines specified by the EPA.
Initial data entry is due 90 days from the award and includes all mandated data elements except
the geographic area (if still to be determined), BMPs, and load reduction data. The recipient will
report BMP and load reduction data as projects are implemented. At a minimum, the BMP and
load reduction data will be reported by March 31 of each year for projects implementing BMPs
in the previous federal fiscal year.
A.4. Water Quality Data Reporting
The recipient agrees to enter water quality monitoring data collected in a waterbody pursuant
to the implementation of a Section 319 project into the EPA's WQX system. All water quality
data generated with Section 319 funding, either directly or by subaward, are required to be
transmitted into the WQX system using either the WQX or WQXweb. When uploading data
through WQX or WQXweb, data should be identified as Section 319 grant-related by providing
the project ID "CWA319" in the data submission. If you have an existing project ID, please
include this in addition to data collected using Section 319 funds. Please contact the WQX
helpdesk (wqxgepa.gov) if you need assistance assigning multiple project IDs to a dataset.
A.5. Programmatic Subaward Reporting Requirement
The recipient must report on its subaward monitoring activities under 2 CFR 200.332. Examples
of items that must be reported if the pass-through entity has the information available are:
a. Summaries of results of reviews of financial and programmatic reports.
b. Summaries of findings from site visits and/or desk reviews to ensure effective
subrecipient performance.
c. Environmental results the subrecipient achieved.
d. Summaries of audit findings and related pass-through entity management decisions.
e. Actions the pass-through entity has taken to correct deficiencies such as those specified
at 2 CFR 200.332, 2 CFR 200.208, and the 2 CFR 200.339 Remedies for Noncompliance.
B. Sufficient Progress/ Satisfactory Progress
The EPA may terminate the assistance agreement for the recipient's failure to make sufficient
progress to reasonably ensure completion of the project within the project period, including any
extensions. The EPA will measure sufficient progress by examining the performance required
under the work plan in conjunction with the milestone schedule, the time remaining for
performance within the project period, and/or the availability of funds necessary to complete
the project. In determining sufficient progress, the EPA may also consider the rate of
expenditure of funds (unliquidated obligations) and the findings from the most recent Section
319 performance and progress determination (Section 319 (h)(8)) (see Appendix D - EPA's
Guidance and Checklist for Determining Progress of State NPSMPs and Performance of CWA
Section 319 Grants).
-------
C. Watershed-Based Plans
Under the Section 319 guidelines, the use of Section 319 watershed project funds requires
completing a WBP that includes all the information in elements (a)-(i) as described in the
Section 319 grant guidelines or an acceptable alternative plan before implementing on-the-
ground projects.
To address identified barriers to equity, the recipient may, with project officer approval, (1) fund
projects that include implementing community demonstration projects and/or capacity building
concurrent with watershed planning activities in identified disadvantaged communities to
address known water quality impairments and (2) fund projects to Section 319-eligible Tribes as
subrecipients to implement project(s) consistent with an up-to-date, EPA-approved Tribal
NPSMP plan, which the EPA will now consider as an acceptable alternative to a nine-element
WBP.
Upon request by the EPA, the recipient shall provide a copy of any WBP or acceptable
alternative plan funded under Section 319. The recipient shall also provide any available
information on the status of implementation activities and results, including but not limited to
any reports on BMPs implemented, Section 319 funds expended, funds contributed by other
sources to assist in implementing WBPs (to the extent this information is readily available to the
state); results achieved; and other relevant and appropriate information.
D. Operation and Maintenance
The recipient will ensure the continued proper operation and maintenance of all NPS BMPs that
have been implemented for projects funded under this agreement. Such BMPs shall be operated
and maintained for the expected lifespan of the specific BMP and in accordance with commonly
accepted standards. The recipient shall include a provision in every applicable subagreement
(subgrant or contract) awarded under this grant requiring that the BMPs for the project be
properly operated and maintained. Likewise, the subagreement will ensure that similar
provisions are included in any subagreements that are awarded by the subrecipient.
E. Maintenance of Effort
State expenditures for NPS implementation activities must meet the MOE level required under
Section 319(h)(9). No grant may be made to a state under this subsection in any fiscal year
unless the state enters into such agreements with the Administrator as the Administrator may
require to ensure that such state will maintain its aggregate expenditures from all other sources
for programs for controlling pollution added to the navigable waters in such state from nonpoint
sources and improving the quality of such waters at or above the average level of such
expenditures in its two fiscal years preceding February 4, 1987. The state should ensure that
MOE requirements have been satisfied and report this through the final Federal Financial Report
at the end of the budget period.
F. Required Non-Federal Match
A 40% nonfederal program match is required under Section 319(h)(3). The state should ensure
that the match requirements have been satisfied and report this through the final Federal
Financial Report at the end of the budget period.
-------
G. Limitation on Administrative Costs
In accordance with Section 319(h)(12) of the CWA, the administrative costs in the form of
salaries, overhead, or indirect costs shall not exceed, in any fiscal year, 10% of the amount of the
grant; however, the costs of implementing enforcement and regulatory activities, education,
training, technical assistance, demonstration projects, and technology transfer programs shall
not be subject to this limitation.
H. Obligation and Outlay of Funds
Per Section 319(h)(6), the recipient will show commitment to expend the funds awarded in this
grant and complete the funded projects in accordance with its EPA-approved NPSMP and the
approved work plan. The recipient will award all proposed contracts, subgrants, and interagency
agreements within one year after the grant award.
I. Public Awareness Options
See the information provided in the Clean Water Act Section 319 Non-Point Source Assistance
Agreements Public Awareness Terms and Conditions.
1. Outreach Signage Requirements
If the Section 319 award includes BMP installations, the recipient agrees to provide signage
that informs the public that the project is funded by the EPA. The signage shall contain the
EPA logo or the EPA seal, as appropriate. To obtain approval for the project sign and the
appropriate EPA logo or seal graphic file, the state NPS coordinator should send a copy of the
draft project sign directly to the EPA regional NPS contact for that state The following
language should be included immediately adjacent to the EPA logo or seal on the project sign
(Note: The EPA requires specific acknowledgments and/or disclaimers for different types of
outreach or educational materials. The following language should be used only for the project
signs, described above):
"This project was funded, in part, by the United States Environmental Protection Agency."
In watershed projects where multiple structural BMPs are installed, the project managers may
consider producing one sign that describes the overall project.
Exceptions to including the EPA signage may be made by the EPA regional Section 319
coordinator on recommendation by the state.
2. Announcements
The grant recipient agrees that announcements through the web or print materials for
workshops, conferences, demonstration days, or other events as part of a project funded by a
Section 319 assistance agreement shall contain a statement that the materials or conference
has been funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
3. Public or Media Events
The recipient agrees to notify the EPA project officer listed in this award document of public
or media events publicizing the accomplishment of significant events related to construction
projects as a result of this agreement and provide the opportunity for attendance and
participation by federal representatives with at least ten (10) working days' notice.
-------
4. Limited English Proficiency Communities
Recipients are encouraged to include non-English communications in their outreach strategies
to increase public awareness of projects serving communities where English is not the
predominant language. Translation costs for this purpose are allowable, provided the costs
are reasonable.
J. Permits
The recipient agrees to ensure that all necessary permits (such as CWA Section 404) are
obtained before implementing any grant-funded activity that may fall under applicable federal,
state, or local laws. The subgrantee's project implementation plan must identify permits that
may be needed to complete work plan activities. The recipient must keep documentation
regarding necessary permits in the project file. EPA approval of a work plan does not imply nor
guarantee that a federal, state, or local permit will be issued for a particular activity.
K. Participation in Regional and National Meetings
The recipient agrees to attend NPS manager and GRTS user meetings as scheduled unless
agreed upon in advance by the EPA project officer. Participation may also include annual on-site
evaluations, teleconferences, and webinars.
L. NPS Success Stories
The recipient must draft and submit to the EPA any applicable NPSMP success stories that
highlight projects resulting in the restoration or improvement of waterbodies. These stories
shall be submitted through the success story database in GRTS.
M. TMDLs Developed Under a CWA Section 319 Grant
For each TMDL developed with the support of Section 319 grant funds, the recipient will provide
the following supplemental information to support the load allocations specified in the TMDL:
(1) an identification of total NPS existing loads and total NPS load reductions necessary to meet
water quality standards by source type; (2) a detailed identification of the causes and sources of
NPS pollution by source type to be addressed to achieve the load reductions specified in the
TMDL (e.g., acres of various row crops, number and size of animal feedlots, acres and density of
residential areas); and (3) an analysis of the NPS management measures by source type
expected to be implemented to achieve the necessary load reductions, with the recognition that
adaptive management may be necessary during implementation.
-------
Glossary
Adaptive management - A nonlinear approach that provides a mechanism to integrate data and lessons
learned back into the operation of an NPS management program or the implementation of a WBP to
stay on course for achieving water quality goals. (For more information, see the EPA's Handbook for
Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters (March 2008). Additionally, adaptive
management applies to observing and learning how a BMP performs over time and using that
knowledge to adapt operation and maintenance strategies, retrofits, or future designs to improve
overall functionality and performance (For more information, see EPA's Bioretention Design Handbook
November 2023).
Advance restoration plan - A near-term plan, or description of actions, with a schedule and milestones,
which is more immediately beneficial or practicable to achieving water quality standards. For more
details, see the EPA's Advance Restoration Plans website.
Best management practices - Methods, measures or practices selected by an agency to meet its NPS
control needs. BMPs include but are not limited to structural and nonstructural controls and operation
and maintenance procedures. BMPs can be applied before, during and after pollution-producing
activities to reduce or eliminate the introduction of pollutants into receiving waters (40 CFR 130.2(m)).
Conservation practices - A structural or vegetative measure or management activity used to protect or
reduce the degradation of soil, water, air, plant, animal, or energy resources (USDA NRCS). For more
details, see the NRCS Conservation Practice Overview.
Climate adaptation - Taking action to prepare for and adjust to both the current and projected impacts
of climate change. For more details, see the EPA's Climate Adaptation website.
Climate resilience - The capacity of a system to maintain function in the face of stresses imposed by
climate change and to adapt the system to be better prepared for future climate impacts. For more
details, see the EPA's Climate Adaptation website.
Disadvantaged community - As set forth in Executive Order 14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home
and Abroad, disadvantaged communities are those that are marginalized, underserved, and
overburdened by pollution. The definitions of disadvantaged communities will be updated in GRTS to
reflect the latest agency guidance.
Green infrastructure - Section 502 of the CWA defines green infrastructure as the range of measures
that use plant or soil systems, permeable pavement or other permeable surfaces or substrates,
stormwater harvest and reuse, or landscaping to store, infiltrate, or evapotranspirate stormwater and
reduce flows to sewer systems or to surface waters. Some use other terms to reference the same
practices as green infrastructure for stormwater management. Other terms may include green
stormwater infrastructure, low-impact development, natural infrastructure, and nature-based solutions.
See the 2019 Water Infrastructure Improvement Act to learn about federal requirements for the EPA to
promote green infrastructure.
Green stormwater infrastructure - GSI used in these guidelines is synonymous with the term green
infrastructure defined in the CWA. Refer to the green infrastructure definition for more information.
-------
Healthy waters - Waterbodies that have been assessed as unimpaired or otherwise demonstrated to be
largely functional and intact, such as those with minimal water quality impairments (to uses other than
those for which protection is being sought). Healthy waters could also include at-risk waters not yet
impaired but where data trends may show signs of water quality degradation. As described in these
guidelines, states may use CWA Section 319 funding for activities to protect priority healthy waters,
consistent with their NPSMP.
Nature-based solutions - Actions to protect, conserve, restore, and sustainably manage natural or
modified ecosystems. These actions use natural features or processes to address public health and
environmental challenges while providing multiple benefits to people and nature. Clarification for types
of actions: Nature-based solutions encompass a wide range of actions that may include the planning,
design, and maintenance of engineering practices that restore, use, or enhance natural processes (e.g.,
green infrastructure, agricultural conservation practices, coastal restoration) and/or protect natural
features to preserve ecosystem function (e.g., wetlands, forests, riparian areas, coral reefs).
Natural hazard mitigation - Any action or project that reduces the effects of future disasters. For more
details, see Hazard Mitigation for Natural Disasters: A Starter Guide for Water and Wastewater Utilities.
NPS management program plan - A state's, Tribe's, or territory's approach to restoring and protecting
water resources. Goals and strategies (regulatory, nonregulatory, financial and technical assistance, as
needed) that would be needed to achieve and maintain water quality standards are identified. It
includes relevant, current, trackable annual milestones for program implementation and all other
components required by Section 319(b) of the CWA. For more details, see Chapter 3.3.
NPS program funds - Comprise up to 50% of the total state Section 319 grant and may be used for a
range of activities that support the goals of the state's approved NPSMP plan within the parameters
provided by these guidelines and other applicable statutory, regulatory, and administrative criteria. For
more details, see Chapter 6.2.
Protection - NPS management strategies, including site-specific (e.g., structural BMPs, land
conservation) or nonstructural (e.g., NPS regulatory programs; land use planning/zoning) practices,
proactively implemented to prevent or minimize water quality degradation from a documented water
quality threat.
Watershed-based plan - A nine-element strategy to guide the implementation of BMPs to achieve
water resource goals in a geographically defined watershed. The WBP includes an assessment of the
watershed and appropriate management recommendations, lists relevant watershed stakeholders,
identifies technical and financial resources related to developing and implementing specific actions, and
details progress assessment criteria and a monitoring plan. For more details, see Appendix B.
Alternative watershed-based plan - A plan or set of actions pursued in the near term for specific
circumstances that, when fully implemented, are designed to attain water quality standards. For more
details, see Chapter 4.6.
-------
Watershed financing partnership - The term derives from EPA's efforts to support CWA section
122(a)(3), which defines watershed partnerships as "Efforts of municipalities and property owners to
demonstrate cooperative ways to address nonpoint sources of pollution to reduce adverse impacts on
water quality." A watershed financing partnership differs from the typical loan model where CWSRF
assistance is delivered on a project-by-project basis in favor of funding groups of projects intended to
address watershed-scale priorities in a single financial package. CWA section 603(c)(7) allows each state
CWSRF to provide financial assistance "for the development and implementation of watershed projects
meeting the criteria set forth in [CWA] section 122." More information on watershed financing
partnerships is available in this 2024 fact sheet.
Watershed project funds - A state's or local group's (subrecipient's) on-the-ground watershed projects
that are implementing an accepted or approved WBP or alternative plan. These projects should
comprise at least 50% of a state's total Section 319 grant. For more details, see Chapter 6.3.
Work plan - A part of a grant application that is negotiated between the grant applicant and the EPA
project officer (or regional EPA NPS program contact) and managers. It reflects consideration of factors
such as the national NPS Program guidance; the goals, objectives, and priorities proposed by the
applicant; and other jointly identified needs or priorities. The work plan must identify priority activities
from the state's NPSMP plan for funding in the next fiscal year and is the basis for management and
evaluation of performance under the grant. For more details, see Applying for and Administering CWA
Section 319 Grants: A Guide for State Nonpoint Source Agencies and 40 CFR 35.107: Work plans.
-------
Information Resources
The following sources of regulatory information, tracking tools, guidance documents, and grant policies
support the information contained in these guidelines.
Regulations
• Clean Water Act Section 319: Nonpoint Source Management Programs
• Full Code of Federal Regulations
Reporting and Tracking
• The EPA's Grants Reporting and Tracking System (GRTS)
• The EPA's Nonpoint Source Success Stories
Guidance
• EPA Section 319 Grant Program information (overview, guidance, and resources)
• Nonpoint source pollution programs contacts (the EPA and states)
Grant Information
• Performance partnership grants (National Environmental Performance Partnership System)
• EPA grants: General terms and conditions
• EPA grants: Policy resources
"People are the foundation that sets everything into motion to restore our waters."
National Nonpoint Source Program Highlights report (USEPA 2016)
------- |