s?E
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
PA
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants
Guidelines for States and Territories
October 30, 2023
-------
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
Preface
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is releasing for comment draft revisions to the
guidelines to states, territories, and the District of Columbia for the award of Section (§) 319 grants
under the Clean Water Act (CWA) for the implementation of nonpoint source (NPS) management
programs. These guidelines are requirements that apply to recipients of grants made with funds
appropriated by Congress under §319 of the CWA. EPA expects to implement these guidelines in fiscal
year 2024 and subsequent years. They will replace the Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines
for States and Territories that have been in effect since the fiscal year 2014 grant cycle (hereinafter
referred to as the "2014 guidelines").
The revisions included in this draft document were informed by two years of stakeholder engagements
with §319 grantees, sub-recipients of §319 funding, and other important stakeholders. 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. 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. Alongside the revised guidelines, EPA will be
releasing a question-and-answer document to clarify and address project and location-specific
considerations. More information on the process and recommendations from those workgroups can be
found here.
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 particularly includes pursuing new
opportunities to finance watershed-scale implementation projects by investing §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 §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. CWA §319 project funds are highly leveraged. For each dollar of §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 §319 project in 2005-2016 and reported to EPA as a "success story."
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
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 CWA §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:
• 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 §319 funds that can be used for protection activities (Chapters 2.5 and 7.6).
• 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 2.6, 3.2, 4.3 and 7.10).
• Reaffirmed the requirement that 50% of each state §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 finance partnerships to implement WBPs or acceptable
alternatives (Chapters 2.7, 6.2.3, and 11.2).
• Expanded the emphasis on targeting NPS control activities in areas that will protect or restore
sources of drinking water (Chapters 4.5. . , and 11.24).
• 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 §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).
Preface
ii
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
• 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 §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 7.2) and expectations for complying with cross-cutting environmental
laws and other regulatory requirements (Chapter 7.3).
EPA will continue to engage with §319 grantees and other key stakeholders on the draft revisions to
these guidelines and is accepting comments through December 31, 2023. Please submit comments via
online form, email to npsguidelines2023@epa.gov or by mail to 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, MC-
4503-T, Washington, DC 20460.
Preface
iii
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
Acronyms
BIL
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
BLM
Bureau of Land Management
BMP
best management practice
BRIC
Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities
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
MOE
maintenance of effort
MS4
municipal separate storm sewer system
NEP
National Estuary Program
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
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
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
WB
watershed-based plan
WQX
Water Quality Exchange
Acronyms
iv
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
Contents
Preface i
Acronyms iv
Chapter 1. Introduction 1
1.1 History and Statutory Overview 1
1.2 Scope 2
1.3 Role of §319 Grants and Guidelines 2
1.4 Overview of the Grant Process 3
Chapter 2. NPS Program Goals and National Priorities 4
2.1 Introduction 4
2.2 NPS Management Program Goals: General information on water quality improvements 4
2.3 Reduce Nutrient Pollution 4
2.4 Ensure Equitable Access to NPSMP Benefits 5
2.5 Protect Healthy Waters and Watersheds 5
2.6 Advance Climate Resilience through NPS Solutions 6
2.7 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 Role of EPA 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 12
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 16
4.6 Alternative Watershed-Based Plans 16
4.6.1 Overview 16
4.6.2 Elements of an Alternative Plan 16
Contents
v
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
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 22
5.1 Introduction 22
5.2 Statutory and Regulatory Expectations 22
5.2.1 Obligate Funds Within One Year 22
5.2.2 Nonfederal Share is 40% or Greater 22
5.2.3 Using §319 Funds for Demonstration Projects 23
5.2.4 States Must Maintain Level of Effort 24
5.2.5 Cap on Administrative Costs 24
5.2.6 Allocation of Funds 25
5.3 CWA §319 Grant Work Plan Requirements 25
5.4 Process and Schedule for Awarding §319 Grants 27
5.4.1 Grant process overview 27
5.4.2 State Project Solicitation and Selection 27
5.4.3 Process for Awarding §319 Grants 29
5.5 State Expenditure of Awarded Funds 31
5.6 Grant Award Approaches 31
5.6.1 PPGs 31
5.6.2 Multiyear Work Plans 32
5.6.3 Territories 33
Chapter 6. Funding Use 34
6.1 Activities Eligible for Funding Under CWA §319 34
6.1.1 Tracking §319 Funds to Balance Implementation and Program Management 34
6.2 NPS Program Funds 34
6.2.1 Program Management Activities 34
6.2.2 Plan Development Activities 35
6.3 Watershed Project Funds 35
6.3.1 Implementing a Watershed-Based Plan 36
6.3.2 State Staff Activities 36
6.3.3 Coordinating a Watershed Finance Partnership 37
6.4 NPS Program and Watershed Project Funds for Monitoring Activities 37
6.5 NPS Program and Watershed Project Funds for State NPS Regulatory Programs 38
6.6 Exemption from 50% Watershed Project Funding Requirement for Substantial State Fund
Leveraging 39
Chapter 7. General Eligibilities, Requirements, and Limitations 40
7.1 Assessing Project Eligibility 40
7.2 NPS Work Limitations Related to NPDES Permits 40
7.2.1 Animal Feeding Operations 40
Contents
vi
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
7.2.2 Abandoned Mine Lands 40
7.2.3 Urban Runoff 41
7.3 NPS Work and Cross-Cutting Environmental Compliance Laws 42
7.4 Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments 43
7.5 National Water Quality Initiative Monitoring 44
7.6 Protecting Healthy Waters and Watersheds 45
7.7 Source Water Protection and §319 Projects 45
7.8 Lake Restoration and Protection Activities 46
7.9 Monitoring: Context, Flexibilities, and Long-term Programs 46
7.9.1 Integrating with Ambient Monitoring and Assessment Efforts 46
7.9.2 National NPS Long-Term Monitoring 47
7.10 Climate 48
7.10.1 Resilience 48
7.10.2 Co-benefits 48
7.10.3 Integrated Planning 48
Chapter 8. Reporting and Tracking 49
8.1 Statute and Regulatory Background 49
8.2 NPSMP Annual Progress Report 49
8.3 Grant Progress 51
8.3.1 Grantee Performance Reports 51
8.3.2 Federal Financial Reports 51
8.4 The Grants Reporting and Tracking System (GRTS) 51
8.4.1 Tracking Protection Investments and Water Quality Outcomes 52
8.4.2 Tracking Source Water Investments 53
8.5 Water Quality Exchange 53
8.6 Responsibilities for Subrecipients and Reporting 53
8.7 Measuring and Tracking National Program Progress 54
8.7.1 Waters that are Partially or Fully Restored/Delisted (Type 1 - Primary National NPS
Program Reporting Measure) 54
8.7.2 Additional Success Story Options 54
Chapter 9. Management and Oversight 56
9.1 Overview of Management and Oversight of §319 Grants 56
9.2 Annual Performance and Progress Determinations 56
9.2.1 Satisfactory Progress Determination 56
9.2.2 Interim Approval Process: Satisfactory Progress Determination 57
Chapter 10. Waiver Process 58
Chapter 11. Relationship to Other Federal Programs 59
11.1 Introduction 59
11.2 EPA Programs 59
Contents
vii
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
11.2.1 CWA §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 60
11.2.4 Source Water Protection and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund 61
11.2.5 CWA §604(b) 62
11.2.6 CWA §106 62
11.2.7 Brownfields Program 63
11.2.8 Technical Assistance Programs 63
11.2.9 Other EPA Programs 63
11.3 Other Federal Programs 64
11.3.1 USDA: 2018 Farm Bill, NRCS, NWQI 64
11.3.2 Federal Emergency Management Agency 66
11.3.3 Additional Federal Collaboration Opportunities 68
Appendices
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 §319 Allocation C-l
Appendix D. Guidance and Checklist for Determining Progress of State NPSMPs and Performance
of CWA §319 Grants D-l
Appendix E. Nationally Consistent Programmatic CWA §319 Terms and Conditions E-l
Glossary Glossary-1
Contents
viii
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
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 §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."
CWA §319 elements discussed in these guidelines include:
• CWA §319(a): To address NPS pollution, §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.
• CWA §319(b): Under §319(b), Congress directed each
state to adopt a state Nonpoint Source Management
Program (NPSMP) to control NPS pollution and submit it
to 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.) CWA §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 §319 grant3 for watershed projects that will
restore and protect NPS-impacted waters. (For more
details on the watershed approach, see Chapter 4.)
• CWA §319(h). To support states in implementing their
NPSMPs, CWA §319(h) provides for grants to states for
which 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
§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
EPA's Polluted Runoff: Nonpoint
Source (NPS) Pollution website.
3 The annual §319(h) grant is comprised of the federal allocation plus the 40% state match.
Chapter 1. Introduction
1
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
Since 1990, Congress has appropriated §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.
CWA §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 §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 §319 Grants and Guidelines
CWA §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 CWA §319 grant funds to achieve the
specific goals, objectives, and milestones established in their
approved NPSMPs. CWA §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 §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 §319
EPA publishes separate §319
guidelines for Tribal grantees.
CWA §518 authorizes EPA to
treat eligible federally
recognized Indian Tribes* in a
similar manner as states
("treatment as a state," or TAS)
for the implementation of
several CWA programs, including
§319. Each year EPA awards
CWA §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 §319
grants from EPA.
EPA encourages states to
collaborate with Tribal partners
to address shared NPS water
quality restoration or protection
goals, including through state
§319 subawards to eligible Tribal
entities. (Note: Tribes are not
required to have §319 TAS status
from EPA to be eligible for state
§319 subawards.) See Chapter
4.6.3 for a description of new
state §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 readability of
these guidelines, Tribe is used as a
collective term encompassing Tribe,
Band, Nation, Pueblo, Indigenous
group, or community.
Chapter 1. Introduction
2
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
1.4 Overview of the Grant Process
Each year, Congress appropriates funds to EPA for the §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). EPA notifies states of their §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 5.1 for more
details on EPA, state, and subrecipient roles in implementing an NPSMP.
Annual reporting requirements to evaluate NPSMP progress (§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.
How Multiple Grants Support Ongoing NPS Programs
Each year EPA
determines
basedon
reporting if
Grantees is
making
Satisfactory
Progress for
continued
eligibility (SPD)
State NPS Management Program Plan (updated every 5 years)
Water Quality and Programmatic Goals and Annua
Milestones
Establishes eligibility to receive 319h grant
2020 319 GranlWorkplan
Project A Project B Project C Project D
SPD
2021 319 GranlWorkplan
Project E Project F Project G Project H
2022 319 GranWorkplan
Project I Project J Project K Project L
Grantee:
Submits Report each year.
Include progress on
milestonesand env. Results
and federal grant reporting
2023 319 GranWorkplan
Project M Project N Project O Project P
Results, Tracking and Adaptive Management
Figure 1. How multiple grants support NPS programs
Update 5 Year Plan
Chapter 1. Introduction
3
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
Chapter 2. NPS Program Goals and National Priorities
2.1 Introduction
States each have their own NPS priorities. Federal grants must also align with the strategic goals and
objectives within the federal awarding agency's performance plan and should support the federal
awarding agency's performance measurement, management, and reporting (2 CFR 200.202). As outlined
in these program guidelines, EPA can support state and national priorities in many ways. The following
section outlines national priorities for the §319 Program that states should consider incorporating into
future NPS management plans and work plans.
2.2 NPS Management Program Goals: General information on water
quality improvements
The CWA §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 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 §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.
2.3 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, 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 §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
4 For example, under 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 EPA's
2024 Integrated Reporting Memorandum.
Chapter 2. NPS Program Goals and National Priorities
4
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
identify, highlight, and scale effective nutrient-reduction approaches. Targeted NPS management of
source waters may also help drinking water systems reduce health-based violations 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 EPAs efforts to reduce nutrient pollution see the 2022 EPA nutrient
reduction memorandum.
2.4 Ensure Equitable Access to NPSMP Benefits
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.56 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. EPA recognizes that water quality and
climate change impacts can disproportionately affect urban and rural communities that are
predominately of color, Indigenous, linguistically isolated, low-income, and/or impacted by other
stressors. EPA is committed to ensuring that the resources to address NPS pollution and the benefits of
cleaner water resulting from §319 grants reach disadvantaged communities. As such, these guidelines
have incorporated new expectations and flexibilities articulated in recent national NPS Program
memos.7
2.5 Protect Healthy Waters and Watersheds
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.) §1251(a); CWA §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 by
providing states greater flexibility to use CWA §319 funds for protection activities consistent with state
NPSMP goals. 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) 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) proactive watershed planning and management can help organize partners and gather
support in protecting critical water resources, such as public drinking water supplies. 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 EPA's Healthy
Watersheds Program.
5 https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-admjnistrator-announces-agency-actions-advance-environmental-
justice
6 https://www.epa.goy/environmentaliustice
7 https://www.epa.gov/nps/equity-resources
Chapter 2. NPS Program Goals and National Priorities
5
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
2.6 Advance Climate Resilience through NPS Solutions
As the historical climatic norms change, communities are impacted through regular interactions with
water resources, bringing the consequences of a changing climate into everyday lives.8 The changing
climate creates 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 §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.
2.7 Leverage Innovative Financing for NPS Solutions
The CWA includes an expectation for states to use §319 grants to help leverage long-term investments
in NPS implementation at the watershed scale. EPA's NPS Success Stories show that §319 grants have
played a critical role in attracting funds from various other sources, multiplying collective investments in
the watershed. For example, 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 finance 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 and support programs with complimentary goals and the potential for expanding existing or
establishing new collaborations.
8 httpsi//www.epa.gov/climate-adaptation/climate-adaptation-plans
Chapter 2. NPS Program Goals and National Priorities
6
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
Chapter 3. Nonpoint Source Management Program
Planning
3.1 Introduction
CWA §319(b) requires all states to adopt NPSMP plans that guide the use of §319 resources to reduce
NPS pollution. State NPSMP plans allow states to identify §319 strategic priorities, develop and track
goals and milestones, and work more effectively to engage stakeholders to address the evolving
condition of their waters and changing state and national NPS priorities. 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 §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 states tailor their programs to address their NPS water quality
goals, they should consider the current federal priorities outlined in Chapter 2. These national priorities
align closely with NPS challenges; however, 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 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 the water
quality.
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. State NPS
protection priority waters may include, for example, waters assessed as unimpaired, outstanding natural
resources waters, healthy aquatic resources, and source water (including groundwater).
Additional details can be found in Appendix A.
Chapter 3. Nonpoint Source Management Planning
7
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
3.3 Components of an Effective State Management Program
Consistent with §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 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 for program
implementation.
2. Identify the primary categories and subcategories of NPS pollution, the risks associated with
changing climate conditions, any impacts of NPS pollution to disadvantaged communities, and a
process for prioritizing impaired and unimpaired waters.
3. Identify BMPs and 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 BMP on groundwater quality. The schedule
containing annual milestones (component 1) will include implementation of the BMPs by
category, subcategory, and/or for particular nonpoint sources.
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 strengthen its 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
revision of 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 (CWA
§319(b)(2)(D)). A NSPMP that is not revised does not require re-certification.
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 §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 CWA §319(h)(8) and
subsequent ineligibility for §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 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.
Chapter 3. Nonpoint Source Management Planning
8
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
3.5 Role of EPA 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). 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 governor's office) are complete to ensure
that EPA can address any concerns that may prevent its approval. NPSMP plan approvals should be
consistent with EPA and state delegations or authorizations.
Chapter 3. Nonpoint Source Management Planning
9
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
Chapter 4. Watershed-based Planning
4.1 The Watershed Approach
Watersheds provide beneficial uses to both humans and wildlife, including 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 managements
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.
EPA and other entities, both inside and outside the government, have demonstrated that the watershed
approach is the most effective means of addressing NPS pollution and the challenging condition of our
water resources. The watershed approach focuses efforts on a particular watershed, which is the area of
land that drains to a specific point, such as the confluence of two rivers, a lake, or a coastal estuary. The
watershed approach provides a framework for working on a watershed basis and is used to generate 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 hoiistically by fully assessing the causes and sources of pollution and
prioritizing restoration and protection strategies to address these problems.
EPA continues to require that any watershed implementation projects funded under §319 directly
implement nine-element WBPs. WBPs containing the nine elements identified in 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. EPA
strongly supports this approach and continues to emphasize nine-element WBPs as the primary planning
framework for §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 §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 wish 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
9 USGS, 2019. Flow modification of the nation's rivers and streams. Report 1461.
Chapter 4. Watershed-based Planning
10
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
use alteration (e.g., urban sprawl), and containing communities already experiencing disproportionately
high adverse impacts from changing climate conditions.
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 §319 and other funding sources. However, states
should also be careful not to use §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. 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, EPA encourages
the state to direct §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 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. EPA
believes all individuals and communities should have fair and equitable access to the benefits of
environmental programs and implementation activities. States should take steps to ensure that
communities with disproportionately high and adverse human health, with 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.
Chapter 4. Watershed-based Planning
11
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
4.4 Developing the WBP for the Unique Scope and Scale of the NPS
Problem
Watershed-based planning should include careful consideration of the unique challenges and
opportunities inherent to a given watershed. For example, to reduce urban NPS impacts, urban WBPs
must 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 could/should identify large, connected land masses 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. 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
current 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) leakage from road salt storage, 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. 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 the necessary
information to provide assurance that the water quality problem can be fully 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.10 This scale allows for effective monitoring/assessment as
well as developing an achievable implementation plan.11 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 (local-level 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
10 Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect our Waters, page 4-7
11 Monitoring and Evaluating Nonpoint Source Watershed Projects, page 2-31
Chapter 4. Watershed-based Planning
12
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
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.
4.5 Leveraging Existing Plans as Building Blocks
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, 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 reference12 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
EPA encourages states to coordinate their efforts to develop and implement WBPs with efforts to
develop and implement TMDLs. 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 TMDL
implementation plan exist and adequately address many of the nine elements of a WBP, 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, EPA encourages states and territories to
address elements of WBPs simultaneously and in concert 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. States may
use §319 funds to develop NPS-only and mixed-source TMDLs. 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
12 Reference to documents should include the page(s) or sections that are relevant to specific WBP elements.
Chapter 4. Watershed-based Planning
13
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
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 necessary during implementation.
By integrating TMDLs and WBPs, states can use information submitted with the TMDLto inform the
WBP. Specifically, details developed during the TMDL process may help complete elements (a), (b), and
parts of (c) of a WBP—at least for the watershed areas subject to the TMDL (See Chapter 6.2.2 for
additional details, and see Appendix B for descriptions of WBP elements.)
States may also use §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.13
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. 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. 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,
see Chapter 6.2.2 for additional details.
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 §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 on agricultural or other pollutants. Nine-element plans may also inform NRCS watershed
assessments—states should coordinate with NRCS state conservationists and EPA to best use plans
developed for the purposes of §319 funding for NWQI implementation or vice-versa (Chapter 7.5). If a
state intends to use an NRCS watershed assessment to support a nine-element WBP in an agriculture-
intensive watershed, additional flexibilities are available (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. In particular, watershed planners should account for
13 In appropriate cases, a WBP could qualify as an "Advance Restoration Plan" for purposes of EPA's 2022-2032
Vision for the CWA Section 303(d) Program and associated metrics. See EPA's 2024 Integrated Reporting
Memorandum.
Chapter 4. Watershed-based Planning
14
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
mitigation actions that may impact hydrology, flow, or water quality in the watershed and/or mitigation
strategies/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—of the watershed 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/action items that intersect with critical areas of the target watershed), watershed planners
should coordinate project planning and implementation with the mitigation planner(s)/emergency
manager(s) responsible for HMP implementation. By communicating regularly about plans/projects
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/organizations. If a draft HMP is being developed in an area
that intersects with a watershed plan, NPS staff/watershed planners 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/emergency managers, all parties can
understand if/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. 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/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 might 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 SDWA 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
Chapter 4. Watershed-based Planning
15
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
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 utilize larger geographic planning
documents to support WBP development. These planning documents are a good starting point but
should not be used as is 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 5.5, 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
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, EPA
recognizes that alternative plans to a WBP, also called an alternative plan, may provide an effective
roadmap to achieve the water quality goals of CWA §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. This justification may be described in the state's NPSMP plan. Incorporating
considerations for circumstances described below 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, 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.
The scope of an alternative plan is less than that of a nine-element WBP, although some states may
choose to develop a nine-element plan for an alternative scenario. 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 and
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 Chapter 5.7). 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.
Chapter 4. Watershed-based Planning
16
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
• 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 and 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. 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
§303(d) program), an alternative plan may be sufficient to guide CWA §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 CWA §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 CWA §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
Chapter 4. Watershed-based Planning
17
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
alternative plans to address these situations. If funds are needed, states should work with their
EPA region to realign funds in existing CWA §319 budgets, set aside funds in future CWA §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
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 §319-funded protection activities:
• In watersheds where a state has assessed waters that are near attaining 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.
Chapter 4. Watershed-based Planning
18
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
• In watersheds where water quality monitoring and assessment information is limited, but
watershed-scale assessments (e.g., EPA's healthy watersheds integrated assessments)
indicate intact watershed function and structure to support healthy aquatic ecosystems.
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 §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 §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.
Beginning in fiscal year 2023,14 a current EPA-approved Tribal NPSMP plan can be considered
an acceptable alternative to a nine-element WBP. Tribes and intertribal consortia must meet the
following four conditions for states to use CWA §319 funding for Tribal projects guided by EPA-
approved NPSMP plans:
• Be federally recognized by the Secretary of the Interior
• Have an approved NPS assessment report in accordance with CWA §319(a)
• Have an approved NPSMP in accordance with CWA §319(b)
• Be approved for treatment in a similar manner as a state (TAS) in accordance with CWA
§518(e)
14 Continued Actions in FY23 to Increase Equity and Environmental Justice in the Nonpoint Source Program
Chapter 4. Watershed-based Planning
19
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
States may award CWA §319 watershed project funds to CWA §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 Tribal regional coordinator with questions about Tribal NPSMP plans.
7. Other Circumstances.
An alternative plan may be used in other situations where 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.
4.7 EPA's Role in Developing and Reviewing WBPs (Nine-element and
Alternative)
EPA regions will annually review a sample of WBPs from each state in their region and provide feedback
and recommendations to help ensure these plans lay a good foundation for efforts to restore and/or
protect waters while ensuring efficient and effective use of §319 funds. Each EPA regional office will
have the discretion to determine the appropriate number of plans to review each year. At a minimum,
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 C of these guidelines. Completed WBPs reviewed by EPA regions and
determined to meet the nine elements will be considered accepted by EPA.
Upon completion of each WBP review, the EPA region will provide written feedback to the state,
identifying any opportunities for improving the plan to better satisfy 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
§319 funds support plan development. In those cases, EPA and the state should coordinate 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 §319
subgrant may have already closed, any adjustments to the WBP based on EPA feedback should occur
concurrently with implementation. It is encouraged that revisions to the watershed plan be task one in
the work plan prior to its implementation with additional §319 funds.
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 region should periodically evaluate alternative plans from the state for which they have
provided review flexibilities to ensure the state is still meeting expectations or if the state is developing
an alternative plan for a circumstance that is not common in the state.
Chapter 4. Watershed-based Planning
20
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
Like nine-element plan development, plan writers should engage with EPA early in the process and
provide opportunities for draft review. EPA is expected to conduct reviews in a timely manner. However,
in cases of an NPS pollution emergency or urgent NPS public health risk, 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 any longer than necessary.
Chapter 4. Watershed-based Planning
21
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
Chapter 5. Grant Award Mechanics
5.1 Introduction
CWA §319 grants must meet all applicable statutory, regulatory, and other requirements, such as
relevant EPA grant policies and guidance that have requirements for the use of EPA grant funds,
including ensuring CWA §319 funds are used in a manner that is reasonable, necessary, and allocable to
the grant. Statutory laws are codified in the United States Code and are created and approved by the
United States Congress and the president. 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 §319(h) grants.15
Table 1. Primary Requirements Ap
plicable to §319(h) Grants3
Categories of Requirements
Citations Relevant to §319(h) Grants
Statutes
CWA §§ 101, 205, 208, 303, 319, 501
Regulations
2 CFR parts 184, 200 and 1500
40 CFR parts 7, 29, 33, 34, and 35
EPA Grant Guideline
https://www.epa.gov/nps/cwa-ss319~grant-current-guidance
a This table reflects primary requirements applicable to grants awarded from fiscal year 2023 forward.16
State NPSMP managers should note EPA's Environmental Program grant regulations at 40 CFR part 35.
Subpart A of these regulations contain §§ 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 CWA §319
(40 CFR 35.268).
5.2 Statutory and Regulatory Expectations
5.2.1 Obligate Funds Within One Year
Per CWA §319(h)(6), states must obligate the funds within one year; any such funds not obligated within
this timeframe shall be available to EPA for granting to other states. EPA has interpreted §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 the nonfederal share
must be provided by nonfederal sources. The nonfederal share for the entire grant must be at least 40%
(CWA §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
15 For more information on statutes, regulations, and guidelines related to §319 grants, see Section 1.3 of Applying
for and Administering CWA Section 319 Grants: A Guide for State Nonpoint Source Agencies.
16 Ibid., 8
Chapter 5. Grant Award Mechanics
22
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
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.17
For §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 §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 §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 §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 §319 funds, provided that they, like any other §319 match funds, are used
to implement the approved §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, other than those that are available to
match other federal grants by law.
• Unallowable costs for the project/program (e.g., lobbying).
5.2.3 Using §319 Funds for Demonstration Projects
CWA §319(h)(7) provides that states may use §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.18 Where a person19 is the §319 subrecipient, the total cost for a demonstration
project from all sources (§319 and other state, federal, or nonprofit funds) may not exceed 100%.
17 Reported using standard form 425.
18 See EPA's Critical Source Area Identification and BMP Selection (2018)
19 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. §1362(5}}.
Chapter 5. Grant Award Mechanics
23
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
5.2.4 States Must Maintain Level of Effort
CWA §319(h)(9) and 40 CFR 35.266 require any state applying for §319 grants to 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 having water quality improvement or
maintenance as a primary objective also should 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 §§ 106, 205(j)(5), and 117. Determining whether the state expenditures meet
the MOE level for the purposes of awarding a §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 §319(h)(9) and 40 CFR 35.266 require a state to
reference expenditures from fiscal years 1985 and 1986. EPA recognizes that this timeframe is more
than 30 years ago, which is beyond typical requirements for records retention and management. EPA
has determined that the following documentation is sufficient to satisfy the MOE requirement
§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 CWA §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 are not subject to the 10% cap limitation.
Chapter 5. Grant Award Mechanics
24
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
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 §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 §319 grant program began. Each year, after
accounting for Tribal §319 program funds, the Congressional appropriation for §319 will be multiplied by
the applicable percentage presented in Appendix C to determine each state's allocation for that year.
Upon receiving the annual Congressional §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 CWA §319 Grant Work Plan Requirements
CWA §319(h)(1) and 40 CFR 35.260(b) provide that §319 grants are to assist the states in implementing
state NPSMPs. Under CWA §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 §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.20
20 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.
Chapter 5. Grant Award Mechanics
25
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
For each of the CWA §319-funded activities proposed, the state grant work plan should include a brief
and concise summary explaining the state's strategy for using CWA §319 funds for the grant awarded.
Each project summary should include the following:
• The problems to be addressed and the goals, including water quality targets, objectives, and
tasks aimed at addressing 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.21 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 §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 §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 watershedwide 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
should include a declarative statement in the work plan that the project being funded with §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.
21 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 products related to an environmental
goal or objective, which 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 that is related to an environmental or programmatic goal or objective.
Chapter 5. Grant Award Mechanics
26
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
A §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 §319 work does not jeopardize or alter the protection of the site remedy.
EPA regions must ensure state grant work plans negotiated under CWA §319 follow all relevant EPA
policies, including Grants Policy Issuance (GPI) 16-01: EPA Subaward Policy for EPA Assistance
Agreement Recipients; GPI 11-03, State Grant IA/orkplans 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 §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 §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 §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 EPA. EPA's
approval of a state's §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 Subaward Policy for EPA Assistance Agreement Recipients.
Chapter 5. Grant Award Mechanics
27
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
Table 2. Overview of EPA's grant award, implementation, and review process
EPA
State NPS Agency
Subrecipients
4->
HQ announces §319
c
0)
E
Q.
"S -i
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 §319 grants
->
Uses §319 fund to
<->
State reviews and ranks
T3
funds to state
implement NPSMP and
subaward proposals for
s
approved WP
§319 funds
<
4-»
Distributes funds to
->
Use §319 funds to
c
ro
subrecipients in
implement NPS projects
accordance with state
and federal requirements
00
c
Imports §319 grant
<->
Enter required NPS
<->
May enter or provide
fund information into
information into GRTS
data for states to enter
o
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 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.
Chapter 5. Grant Award Mechanics
28
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
5.4.3 Process for Awarding §319 Grants
EPA recognizes that the §319 grant award process and timeline may vary from state to state (e.g., due to
differing fiscal years, 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 §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 §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 Grants Policy Issuance 16-01, EPA
Subaward Policy for EPA Assistance Agreement Recipients.
Step 2: States submit draft work plans and budgets to their EPA regional office.22
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
CWA §319, EPA's general grant regulations in 2 CFR Parts 20023 and 1500. 40 CFR Parts 7, 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.
22 For states that include their 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).
23 Note that, as explained in 2 CFR 200.104, 2 CFR part 200 supersedes the requirements of certain OMB 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.
Chapter 5. Grant Award Mechanics
29
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
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., SDWA, 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
particular 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
Chapter 5. Grant Award Mechanics
30
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
agreements no later than one year after the grant award.24 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 §319 grant award
process, facilitate best practices to ensure the expenditure rate of §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 Agreements25 (also see Section 319 Grants Streamlining Policy and Program
Expectations for Expenditure of Funds).
5.6 Grant Award Approaches
5.6.1 PPGs
PPGs are grant delivery tools that allow states and Tribes to combine eligible State and Tribal Assistance
Grant Program grants, including CWA §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.
24 This grant condition and others, including the sufficient progress term and condition to comply with GPI 11-01
and GPI 12-06, are included in EPA's nationally consistent §319 grant terms and conditions list for fiscal year 2023
and beyond (see Appendix E).
25 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 EPA.
Chapter 5. Grant Award Mechanics
31
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
CWA §319 funds are eligible for inclusion in a PPG. States wishing to include the §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,
including the portions of a PPA that serve as a grant work plan, must meet the requirements of
40 CFR 35.107(b). In addition, the portions of the PPA that are used as the §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 §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 §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 §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 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. EPA will fund the application incrementally as funds become available. Note that,
because a given project period for §319 grants is not to exceed five years, states will have less time to
spend §319 funds in the later years of multiyear grants. For example, if a state is awarded a five-year
grant in fiscal year 2023 that will be incrementally funded, the state will have a maximum of five years to
expend fiscal year 2023 funds, four years to expend fiscal year 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 EPA will, however, retain the option of negotiating modifications to multiyear work plans on an
annual basis.
Chapter 5. Grant Award Mechanics
32
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
5.6.3 Territories
CWA §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 §501 of the Omnibus Territory Act of 1977, 48 U.S.C. §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).26
26 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 5. Grant Award Mechanics
33
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
Chapter 6. Funding Use
6.1 Activities Eligible for Funding Under CWA §319
Approved state NPSMP plans provide the framework for determining what activities are eligible for
funding under §319(h). EPA expects each state to use §319 funds to restore and protect the priority
waterbody types for the state, including all types of surface water and groundwater27 (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 CWA §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 §319
funds for implementing WBPs to restore impaired waters, and they require states to set aside at least
50% of the §319 funds for watershed projects that implement WBPs. This set-aside is referred to as
watershed project funding. States may use the remaining §319 funds, referred to as NPS program funds,
for the full range of activities that support the goals of the state NPSMP.
CWA §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 7.2
for more details.
6.1.1 Tracking §319 Funds to Balance Implementation and Program Management
EPA requires that §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 CWA §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 CWA §319 subawards and state contracts.
6.2.1 Program Management Activities
The following program management activities are generally supported with NPS program funds:
• NPS state programs, including nonregulatory or regulatory28 approaches for enforcement,
technical assistance, financial assistance, education, training, technology transfer, and
demonstration projects to achieve implementation of BMPs and water quality goals.
27 EPA's policy is to award all §319 grants under §319(h) in lieu of awarding separate grants under §319(i) or §314
to provide better integration, flexibility, and efficiency.
28 For states that have a regulatory NPS program, see also Chapter 6.5.
Chapter 6. Funding Use
34
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
• 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 §319 program funds for planning activities that
support the protection of healthy waters, including healthy watersheds assessments and
protection plans,29 source water protection activities, and efforts to leverage other funding
sources to protect watersheds.
Conducting TMDL development activities. States can use §319 program funds to develop NPS-only and
mixed-source TMDLs (see Chapter 4.5.1). EPA strongly encourages states to prioritize §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. EPA encourages state NPS and TMDL program staff to work together
when prioritizing and developing TMDLs. 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.
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. Because submitting
this WBP information is a §319 NPSMP requirement, EPA regional NPSMP staff might review it for
adequacy as part of the grant oversight process (e.g., as needed as part of the work plan review process
and/or for subsequent reporting). This review would be separate from the EPA regional staffs review of
the TMDLs submitted by states pursuant to CWA §303(d) and EPA's TMDL regulations at 40 CFR 130.7.
6.3 Watershed Project Funds
States must use at least 50% of the §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.
29 For example, under 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 EPA's 2024 Integrated Reporting
Memorandum.
Chapter 6. Funding Use
35
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
6.3.1 Implementing a Watershed-Based Plan
State or local group (subrecipient) on-the-ground watershed projects that are implementing an
accepted or approved WBP or alternative plan should continue to be the most common use of
watershed project funds.
With regional approval, a project could include both CWA §319 project funds and program funds if the
project includes both the development AND initial implementation of a WBP or acceptable alternative
plan. However, 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 §319 project or if they
are identified in a WBP to encourage landowners' implementation of certain BMPs to improve water
quality within a watershed.
EPA regions may allow states to use a very limited amount of watershed project funds to support minor
updates to existing WBPs where technical analyses 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. 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, businesses).
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 EPA's approval of the state's CWA §319 grant work plan,
EPA requires that work plans clearly describe all the proposed staff activities that will be supported with
CWA §319 funds, including how the staff supported by watershed project funds will directly implement
a WBP or acceptable alternative plan.
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.
Chapter 6. Funding Use
36
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
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 §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 Finance Partnership
To incentivize greater use of CWSRF to support the implementation of WBPs, funding to create or
support watershed finance partnerships30 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 §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 §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 results in NWQI watersheds, including, if necessary, in
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.
30 EPA defined a watershed finance partnership in a 2019 CWSRF program bulletin as "a way to implement
nonpoint source projects on a watershed basis using CWSRF financial assistance." The bulletin clarifies how the
CWSRF program can be used to promote watershed financing partnerships and notes that "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.
Chapter 6. Funding Use
37
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
• Supporting monitoring efforts that are included in EPA's National NPS Long-term Monitoring
Program. While the program is not currently active, EPA plans to revitalize the effort in the near
future to help evaluate the effectiveness of NPS BMPs and to improve 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 §319(b), require that numerous staff take required training, process permit applications, conduct
inspections, and develop and implement the program, including address citizen's complaints, issue
notices of violation or administrative orders, and follow 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 §319 funds supporting the work identified, the
related load reductions reported yearly, and the program progress reports attached.
Activities considered to be program funds include:
• Developing NPS regulatory guidance materials, inspection manuals, and BMP handbooks
• Supporting staffs work reviewing/processing applications and enrolling and tracking
participants (can be referred to as issuing individual permits, etc.)
• Training inspectors
Activities considered to be project funds include:
• Responding to citizen complaints and following up on/documenting complaints (orders, etc.)
• Conducting preliminary site visits and inspections and preparing reports
• Developing interim reports to document project implementation and issues
• Inspecting the final project and developing a report (document the final project status/end date)
• Calculating mitigated load reductions (where appropriate)
• Carrying out enforcement-related activity (where appropriate)
Chapter 6. Funding Use
38
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
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 §319 grant and 50% of
each state §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). Fortunately, most states implementing their NPSMPs already 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 §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, 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 CWA §319-funded projects, states must include all the state or locally funded projects
used to meet this exemption in the annual CWA §319 grant work plans. Additionally, all state or locally
funded projects used to meet this exemption must be reported in EPA's GRTS database in the same
manner as CWA §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 CWA §319 grant award may not be used to meet this exemption.
Chapter 6. Funding Use
39
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
Chapter 7. General Eligibilities, Requirements, and
Limitations
7.1 Assessing Project Eligibility
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 (they meet 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). The following sections, which
explain the eligibility of some common project scenarios and parameters, are intended to help states
and EPA regions during their project development and review processes.
7.2 NPS Work Limitations Related to NPDES Permits
CWA §319 funding cannot be used to support activities necessary to meet NPDES permit requirements
except when the NPS project must comply with an NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharge
Associated with Construction Activities. For example, a structural BMP to control NPS may result in
disturbance of land surface above a specific area threshold, and the surface disturbance may trigger the
need for NPDES permit authorization until the land surface is stabilized and re-vegetated. In such a case,
§319 project funds may be used to implement and comply with the requirements in the NPDES general
permit for the construction activity because the resulting project controls NPS.
7.2.1 Animal Feeding Operations
Water quality protection and pollution reduction activities at animal feeding operations that are not
regulated as point sources subject to NPDES permits are eligible for §319 funding. Although activities at
concentrated animal feeding operations necessary to meet NPDES permit requirements are not eligible
(i.e., point source activities), certain activities associated with concentrated animal feeding operations
covered by NPDES permits may be eligible for §319 funding, including projects to control runoff from
land application areas where manure is applied in rates and concentrations that are agronomically
appropriate for crop production.
7.2.2 Abandoned Mine Lands
Abandoned mine land reclamation projects designed to restore water quality are eligible for §319
funding except where funds are used to implement specific requirements in NPDES permits or
unpermitted point source discharges. For example, §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.
Chapter 7. General Eligibilities, Requirements, and Limitations
40
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
• 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.
7.2.3 Urban Runoff
While green stormwater infrastructure may be required under the terms of the NPDES permit, GSI
activities that occur within the jurisdiction of the MS4 but are not directly required in the NPDES permit
may be eligible for §319 funding. Operators of medium and large MS4s located in incorporated places
and counties with populations of more than 100,000 are subject to NPDES Phase I MS4 stormwater
permit requirements that may specify both structural and nonstructural BMPs. In addition, operators of
small MS4s, i.e., those located within "urban areas with a population of at least 50,000," are also
required to obtain authorization under an NPDES permit.31
EPA recognizes the benefits of integrating §319 funds and NPDES stormwater activities to achieve the
CWA goals, and EPA supports the flexibility to fund these activities through §319 as is legally allowable.
In general, in cases where GSI is to be funded using §319 funds, the use of §319 funds should advance
water quality protection or restoration beyond the requirements or measures required by the NPDES
permit (i.e., implement projects, performance measures, and outreach and education efforts not in the
NPDES permit). Examples of GSI that may be appropriate for §319 funding include green roofs,
bioretention practices, rainwater harvesting, green street designs to promote infiltration of runoff into
urban soils, urban trees, landscaped swales, nature-based solutions designed to reduce flooding or
drought-related impacts on water quality and wetland/riparian area protection and restoration. In
addition to installing GSI, the following urban runoff management activities may generally be considered
eligible for §319 funding as long as they are not required by an NPDES permit or permit requirement
(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 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.
31 EPA signed its final rule NPDES Small MS4 Urbanized Area Clarification on June 7, 2023 following the Census
Bureau's 2022 urban area mapping revisions. The final rule replaces the term "urbanized area" in the Phase II
regulations with the phrase "urban areas with a population of at least 50,000," which is the Census Bureau's
longstanding definition of the term urbanized areas.
Chapter 7. General Eligibilities, Requirements, and Limitations
41
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
• 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, §319 funds may not be
used to implement NPDES permit application requirements. For example, §319 funds may not be used
to map stormwater systems, identify illicit connections, characterize stormwater discharges, or other
activities needed to meet permit application requirements. CWA §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 §319 funds, specifically
that §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 grants. (Note: "publicly owned treatment works," which include publicly owned
methods or systems for preventing, abating, reducing, storing, treating, separating, or disposing of
"stormwater runoff," are eligible to receive financial assistance under the CWSRF program.)
As NPDES permits for MS4s continue to evolve, more may include retention-based requirements and
greater specificity in required management practices, and a review of permit requirements may be
needed to determine the eligibility of specific projects for §319 funding. In these cases, states should
consult with their EPA regional coordinator on §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 stormwater
management, such as funds derived from stormwater-related fees and CWSRF financial assistance.
7.3 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 Regulatory and Guidance Information by Topic: Cross-Cutting Issues, which
contains information on the laws and links to relevant compliance actions for those state
activities that may trigger a crosscutting law.
• Existing state processes for conducting assessments and ensuring compliance with CWA §§ 401
and 404, where applicable.
• Existing state processes for conducting assessments and other compliance activities under the
Archaeological and Paleontological Resources Protection Act and the National Historical
Preservation Act and/or Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.
• Existing state processes to determine if any other Crosscutting Authorities apply.
Chapter 7. General Eligibilities, Requirements, and Limitations
42
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
• CWA §513 applies the Davis-Bacon and Related Act (Davis Bacon) requirements to "treatment
works" projects for which grants are made under the CWA. CWA §212 defines construction and
treatment works for grants under Title II. Although the §212 definition can be used as a guide
for determining whether a project is a treatment works for purposes of §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 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 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, §§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
§70914(a). The Buy America preference requirement applies to an entire infrastructure project,
even if it is funded by both Federal and non-Federal 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; EPA's BABA website; and the Office of
Management and Budget, Made In America Office's BABA website.
The National Environmental Policy Act is not applicable to §319 funds. CWA §511(c)(l) 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. CWA §319 grants do not fit
within either category; therefore, they are not subject to National Environmental Policy Act
requirements.
7.4 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 §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 CWA §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 §319 funds to help implement these programs.
CZARA directs states to implement their CNPCPs through changes to the state plan for control of NPS
pollution approved under CWA §319. 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
Chapter 7. General Eligibilities, Requirements, and Limitations
43
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
approved CNPCPs are expected to include CZARA-related milestones in their five-year NPSMP plan 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 §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 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 $100,000 or 5% of its federal allocation in §319
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 §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 §319 funding allocations do not
significantly increase in those years. The CZARA set-aside would remain until EPA and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) jointly determine that all the conditions of the federal
agencies' earlier approval of the state's CNPCP have been met. The CZARA set-aside applies only to any
state with a program that EPA and NOAA approved subject to conditions that have not yet been met.
Additionally, the CZARA set-aside does not apply if 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). EPA will implement this set-aside prior to
determining the split between the watershed project funds and NPS program funds. States must detail
the use of this set-aside in their annual §319 grant work plans to describe how it will support
advancement towards full program approval under CZARA.
7.5 National Water Quality Initiative Monitoring
CWA §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, EPA expects states to select at least one NWQI watershed
for focused monitoring. States should devote sufficient resources—CWA §319 and others (e.g., CWA
§106)—to meet NWQI expectations and objectives.32 If §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).
32 States are encouraged but not required to devote §319 funds to support NWQI implementation.
Chapter 7. General Eligibilities, Requirements, and Limitations
44
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
7.6 Protecting Healthy Waters and Watersheds
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. §1251(a); CWA §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 CWA §319 funds on restoring NPS-impaired
waters to meet water quality standards. However, EPA recognizes the critical role of protection in
achieving NPSMP goals, including 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. EPA is placing a renewed and increased emphasis on actions to protect
healthy waters, including through the approaches outlined below.
Using CWA §319 Funds to Protect Healthy Waters
Under these guidelines, 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 EPA through §319 grant work plan negotiations. The proportion of §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
§319 funding and implementation in that particular year. States may also use NPS program funds to
protect healthy waters.
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. EPA will continue
working with states to expand opportunities to highlight protection investments and successes within
the national NPS Program.
7.7 Source Water Protection and §319 Projects
States may use §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 or 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 set-aside funds, NPS projects
in areas critical to source water quality, furthering §319 funding. See Chapter 8.4.1 for the ability to
track §319 funded projects in source water protection areas in GRTS.
Chapter 7. General Eligibilities, Requirements, and Limitations
45
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
7.8 Lake Restoration and Protection Activities
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 EPA
limits §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 EPA
will consider approving the use of §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. EPA will
review the project proposal(s) and additional documentation before making a funding determination for
the specific project(s). Some of 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 §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 §319 funding for ongoing operation and maintenance of a waterbody through
in-lake treatments is not a practicable or eligible use of funds.
Because there are many unique project- and location-specific considerations, please consult the
question-and-answer document for a more complete list of factors that could be considered.
7.9 Monitoring: Context, Flexibilities, and Long-term Programs
EPA recognizes that monitoring is essential for documenting the restoration of impaired waters and the
protection of high-quality waters. EPA encourages states to use §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.
7.9.1 Integrating with Ambient Monitoring and Assessment Efforts
EPA encourages state NPSMPs to coordinate with state ambient monitoring and assessment efforts,
including those supported through the §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 programs33
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
33 Existing data sets are consolidated and easily downloaded via sites like EPA's How's My Waterway, EPA's
WATERS, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Inventory, among others.
Chapter 7. General Eligibilities, Requirements, and Limitations
46
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
surveys or monitoring on a rotating basin basis. Approaches that can provide useful 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 §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.
7.9.2 National NPS Long-Term Monitoring
EPA, in collaboration with several states, implemented a rigorous and standardized monitoring
framework of §319-funded projects from 1991 to 2011 that informed improved approaches to BMPs
(https://www.epa.gov/nps/national-nonpoint-source-monitoring-program). The results and lessons
learned from these longer-term project efforts helped shape several BMP expectations for NPS pollution
control.
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. EPA intends to develop a broader national coordination soon to support states
with project development, monitoring design, data management and analysis, and reporting. From time
to time, and in close collaboration with relevant states and project managers, EPA will publish progress
reports and results. In the interim, 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).
Chapter 7. General Eligibilities, Requirements, and Limitations
47
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
7.10 Climate
CWA §319 funds are intended to improve, restore, and protect water quality. Considering changing
climate conditions (see Chapter 2). EPA encourages states to consider resilience and natural hazards
mitigation in project design and selection.
7.10.1 Resilience
When creating project descriptions, the state and EPA regional reviewer should consider if the project
proposal has included BMP design considerations related to climate variations and risks that are
geographically relevant to the project area. Examples may include selecting drought and temperature-
tolerant plants considering the flood zones and potential stormwater volumes in streambank vegetation
or culvert design.
7.10.2 Co-benefits
"Co-benefits" occur when a nature-based solution derives benefits beyond the intended function. For
example, GSI implemented to improve water quality as a primary benefit can also provide recreational
space, habitat diversity, flood/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 §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. EPA plans to support easier capture/reporting of co-benefits in GRTS in the near future.
7.10.3 Integrated Planning
Agencies like FEMA and USACE support planning and projects that address natural hazards and climate
risks. Because these agencies understand the resilience and risk reduction co-benefits that nature-based
solutions can achieve, they encourage using these BMPs to achieve hazard mitigation, climate
adaptation, and disaster recovery goals. In conducting watershed and/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.
Chapter 7. General Eligibilities, Requirements, and Limitations
48
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
Chapter 8. Reporting and Tracking
8.1 Statute and Regulatory Background
All §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); 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 EPA. The grant
regulations outline a range of administrative reporting requirements, including performance and
financial reports. CWA §319(h) (10) and (11) contain additional provisions related to reporting:
• CWA §319(h)(10) authorizes EPA to request information, data, and reports as necessary to
determine a state's continuing eligibility to receive §319 grants.
• CWA §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. EPA uses reporting through §319 GRTS for
web-enabled data entry to support those reporting expectations.
Reporting requirements are included in the Terms and Conditions for §319(h) grant recipient. The
specific reporting requirements for §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 (2 CFR 200.329).
8.2 NPSMP Annual Progress Report
States must report annually on progress in implementing the NPSMP plan34. The report provides an
effective 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. This information may be provided in various formats35 and, while brief, should
34 §319(h)(ll) requires states to report annually on progress in meeting the schedule of milestones contained in
their NPS management programs, and, to the extent information is available, report reductions in NPS pollutant
loadings and improvements in water quality resulting from program implementation.
35 Formats that states have selected can range from interactive reports like story maps to printable hardcopy
reports.
Chapter 8. Reporting and Tracking
49
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
contain sufficient information to support the evaluation of progress. The annual progress report should
include the following (unless already reported to EPA in grant progress reports, GRTS, etc.):
• 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 CWA §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 programs (e.g., SDWA) 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.
Chapter 8. Reporting and Tracking
50
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
8.3 Grant Progress
8.3.1 Grantee Performance Reports
2 CFR 200.329 requires states to submit performance reports on the status of §319 grants. 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. A listing of 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 above.
• 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
2 CFR 200.328 requires grantees to submit federal financial reports using Standard Form 425 or 425(a)
to report the status of funds under each grant. 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)
GRTS is an online database that enables states and EPA regions to fulfill §319 grant reporting
requirements. This comprehensive database of NPSMP information tracks §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 §319(h) grant recipients. The mandated elements include parameters necessary to
successfully account for accomplishments of the §319 program. GRTS has the capacity to accept
additional information on state programs and projects beyond the mandated elements outlined in the
Chapter 8. Reporting and Tracking
51
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
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 §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 on developing 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 §319(h)(8)), states are strongly encouraged
to attach elements of their annual report (per §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 §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 4.2.5).
EPA continues to enhance GRTS to incorporate improved tracking and reporting requirements and
minimize the reporting burden of the states and/or subrecipients. EPA will continue to communicate
with the states on the development of these enhancements and will ensure adequate notification,
training, and direction are provided.36 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, 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. EPA will work with states to leverage these project data to highlight the increasing role of
protection in the national NPS Program.
36 EPA intends to ensure that any new financial reporting requirements implemented through updates to GRTS are
consistent with PPG regulations.
Chapter 8. Reporting and Tracking
52
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
8.4.2 Tracking Source Water Investments
States and EPA may use GRTSto track key metrics of the intersecting benefits of §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
EPA requires states to enter their water quality monitoring data—for data collected in a waterbody as a
part of implementing a §319 project—into EPA's WQX data system. All water quality data generated
with §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 EPA, State, and Tribal Exchange Network. More information
about WQX and WQXWeb, including instructions, can be found at
https://www.epa.gov/waterdata/water-quality-data and https://www.epa.gov/waterdata/water"
quality-data-upload-wqx.
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 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 EPA's
GPI 16-01: EPA Subaward Policy for EPA Assistance Agreement Recipients.
Chapter 8. Reporting and Tracking
53
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
8.7 Measuring and Tracking National Program Progress
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 §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 §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.
EPA reports results from these stories to Congress via the NPS measure outlined in 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 §319 programs accomplishments.
This measure is regularly referenced by EPA senior management when describing the §319 program's
impact.
8.7.2 Additional Success Story Options
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 (note, new healthy waters and interim metrics are forthcoming).
Water Quality Improvements
These 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).
Chapter 8. Reporting and Tracking
54
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
Habitat/Ecological Restoration
These stories (also known as Type 3) generally include waterbodies with water quality problems but
were not listed on the CWA §303(d) list or the Integrated Report (for unspecified reasons). However,
restoration efforts were implemented that resulted in one or more uses being restored.
Healthy Waters Protected from Water Quality Impairment
These stories 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, EPA seeks to highlight NPS activities that were
strategically targeted to achieve water quality protection goals.
Interim Metrics/Reporting and NPSMP Accomplishments
These stories 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.
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.37 State measures that
are part of an approved state NPSMP will be considered by EPA for demonstrating progress toward
meeting annual milestones under §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.
37 The latest definitions for these programmatic metrics are found at www.epa.gov/nps/success.
Chapter 8. Reporting and Tracking
55
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
Chapter 9. Management and Oversight
9.1 Overview of Management and Oversight of §319 Grants
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.
Through these various oversight mechanisms, EPA and the states work collaboratively to implement an
effective national NPS Program. In conducting oversight activities, EPA relies on information and reports
provided by the state, the data entered into GRTS and WQX, and periodic site visits. EPA regions are
primary responsible for reviewing, commenting on, and accepting documentation required under the
§319 program. Relevant documentation/information includes the approved state NPSMP, the annual
report required by §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 §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. EPA will
contact states if additional information is needed.
Important oversight activities for 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
EPA has a statutory obligation under §319(h)(8) to determine if a state made satisfactory progress in
meeting the schedule of relevant annual milestones specified in their current NPSMPs. EPA is prohibited
from awarding grants under §319(h) in the absence of such a determination for the preceding fiscal
year. This is another essential reason that EPA requires that NPSMPs be reviewed and updated every
five years—so the program objectives and milestones are relevant for each grant period. As noted in
Chapter 9. Management and Oversight
56
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
Chapter 3.5 of these guidelines, states that do not maintain current NPSMPs risk 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. EPA is also responsible for ensuring
accountability for the management of §319(h) grant funds broadly and is authorized by §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 §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 staff38 using a standardized template (Appendix D). which
addresses the requirement under §319(h)(8), as well as key information regarding §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 §319 project officers to email the
state the determination result in addition to attaching it to the funding recommendation.
9.2.2 Interim Approval Process: Satisfactory Progress Determination
States may occasionally encounter unexpected challenges in implementing their NPS management plan
(e.g., excessive unliquidated obligations or delayed update of their NPSMP plans), resulting in a situation
where the EPA region cannot find that the state has met all the requirements of §319(h)(8). In these
rare cases, the region may conclude that progress has been partially demonstrated satisfactory. Rather
than withholding the entire §319 grant until all requirements of §319(h)(8) are met, the region may
elect to make a conditional or partial grant award that includes a term and condition requiring that any
outstanding item, task, or program element be addressed to demonstrate satisfactory progress. The EPA
regional water division director may approve the conditional or partial award with the concurrence of
the national NPS Program manager in EPA's Office of Water.
38 This is typically the §319 grant project officer or regional EPA NPS program contact for standalone grants or §319
program coordinator for states that include §319 in a PPG.
Chapter 9. Management and Oversight
57
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
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 in lieu 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 EPA's Office of Water. 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 §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 10. Waiver Process
58
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
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 that have the most potential for
collaboration and leveraging funds to support NPS pollution management.
11.2 EPA Programs
11.2.1 CWA §303(d)
Under §303(d) of the CWA, states must develop a list of "water quality limited segments" still requiring
TMDLs. States must develop TMDLs for waters on the §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 §319 program is
an important mechanism to implement TMDLs and restore the impaired waters listed under §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 EPA's highest priorities for using §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 §319 program activities.
EPA encourages states to coordinate their CWA TMDL and §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. 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
Chapter 11. Relationship to Other Federal Programs
59
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
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 §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
§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 §319 investments. Additionally, in 2014, Congress
expanded CWSRF eligibilities by adding watershed partnerships under CWA § 603(c)(7), defined at
33 U.S.C. § 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; while not required, in
some cases the lUPs contain a list of the specific NPS activities under §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, 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 §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 §319 funds, provided that they, like
any other §319 match funds, are used to implement the approved §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 §319 funds for states that provide
significant amounts of state funding for NPS watershed project activities (see Chapter 6.5).
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 §221, which reauthorized the
Chapter 11. Relationship to Other Federal Programs
60
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
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 §§1428 and 1453 of the Safe Drinking Water Act. States and Tribes may use §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. 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). EPA encourages strong coordination between NPS and
source water programs, such as:
• Including source water protection information in state NPSMP plans.
• Prioritizing §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, Regional Conservation
Partnership Program, priority watersheds).
Chapter 11. Relationship to Other Federal Programs
61
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
• 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 pose 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.
• 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, EPA has an online mapping tool, Drinking Water Mapping Application to Protect Source
Water (DWMAPS), 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 §604(b)
Water Quality Management Planning grants are awarded to states under CWA §604(b) to carry out
activities in §205(j) and §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 $117 million into state §604(b) programs for fiscal years 2022-2026. EPA's
guidelines emphasize the complementary nature of grants awarded under §§ 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 §106
The Water Pollution Control Program under §106 of the CWA authorizes EPA to provide financial
assistance to states, eligible interstate agencies, and eligible Tribes through water pollution control
grants. CWA §106 grants can support various water pollution prevention and control programs and
activities, including:
Chapter 11. Relationship to Other Federal Programs
62
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
• Monitoring and assessing ambient water quality
• Developing water quality standards (informing §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 §106 to coordinate monitoring efforts in priority areas
identified in the NPSMP plan (for more information, see Chapter 7.9).
11.2.7 Brownfields Program
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, 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
EPA also has centers dedicated to supporting technical assistance, including:
• EPA's Office of Water's Environmental Finance Centers offer 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.
11.2.9 Other EPA Programs
State NPSMPs are encouraged to coordinate with the following programs to advance mutual goals.
• EPA's NEP, authorized under §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.
Chapter 11. Relationship to Other Federal Programs
63
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
• The Urban Waters Federal Partnership comprises 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 §404 of the CWA
and under other federal and state authorities and programs.
• Geographic programs, including for the Chesapeake Bay (§117); Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative (§118); Long Island Sound (§119); Lake Champlain (§120); Lake Pontchartrain (§121);
Puget Sound (§320); Columbia River Basin (§123); and the Gulf of Mexico, Pacific Northwest,
South Florida, Southeast New England Estuaries, and San Francisco Bay (CWA §320(a)(2)(B)).
• State programs that implement the NPDES point source program, particularly with respect to
urban runoff, construction and development, and concentrated animal feeding operations. For
example, states can find areas within their NPDES program that have similar pollutant reduction
goals in their NPSMP. While §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, 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.
11.3 Other Federal Programs
11.3.1 USDA: 2018 Farm Bill, NRCS, NWQI
The Conservation Title of the Farm Bill provides significant opportunities to work closely with the USDA
and, more generally, the agricultural and working lands community to leverage funding and other
resources to improve water quality affected by agricultural and silvicultural NPS pollution and to achieve
our common goals of restoring and protecting water quality. USDA's Farm Bill conservation programs
such as Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP), Conservation Reserve Program, Conservation
Stewardship Program, Regional Conservation Partnership Program, and Agricultural Conservation
Easement Program, protect and restore water quality by supporting a range of activities, including: 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
https://www.usda.gov/farmbill and https://nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs).
States should build and expand collaboration with USDA to enhance NPSMP work via these conservation
programs. Where conservation programs implement conservation or restoration measures, §319 can
fund complimentary activities, including: (1) developing WBPs, watershed assessments, and other plans
for impaired watersheds, source water priority areas, or other high-priority watersheds that optimize
conservation program implementation and collaborative opportunities; (2) funding watershed
Chapter 11. Relationship to Other Federal Programs
64
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
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. Conservation programs can also address NPS pollution from nonindustrial
private forests where a private landowner owns more than 10 acres, for example, by funding forest
management plans and conservation and restoration measures to protect and improve water quality.
The NWQI began in fiscal year 2012 as a collaborative effort between EPA, NRCS, and states to improve
water quality in agricultural watersheds by addressing nutrient, sediment, and pathogen pollution
through targeted conservation implementation and enhancing working relationships among state NRCS
and state water quality agencies. EPA, NRCS, and states will continue implementing the NWQI to
encourage and facilitate program coordination in targeted priority watersheds nationwide. EPA expects
states to meet minimum NWQI participation levels (at least three planning and/or implementation
watersheds and/or source water protection areas per state) and urges states to go beyond this as
appropriate to maximize coordination and leveraging of NRCS resources. 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 1.25 million acres. In fiscal year 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 7.5. 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 EPA's website.
11.3.1.1 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 work closely with
NRCS to identify state priorities for Source Waters impacted by agricultural work. Stay
involved in the Watershed Assessment Plan development and implementation phases
and supplement information and resources to accomplish water quality goals.
b. Participate in the state technical advisory committee meetings and share the state
priority waterbody restoration plans.
c. Participate in local coordinating and subcommittee meetings, e.g., EQIP subcommittee.
The EQIP subcommittee is especially important in lieu of or in addition to the state
technical advisory committee meetings.
3. Engage NRCS in a dialogue about state water quality priorities and share data and information.
a. Engage with NRCS staff about priority NPS water quality issues, watersheds, and project
plans. Discuss 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.
Chapter 11. Relationship to Other Federal Programs
65
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
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 other water
quality programs.
4. Explore collaboration with NRCS in other ways to advance water quality and assist NRCS when
possible.
a. Encourage state or local watershed coordinators to participate at the local level 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 the funding they can
access through NRCS. A state can match the funding that is needed with §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 §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
EPA recognizes that current and future impacts of climate change affect overall public health, safety,
and water resources. Particularly 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 also focus heavily on pre-
disaster hazard mitigation and climate change adaptation/resilience. 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.
Chapter 11. Relationship to Other Federal Programs
66
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
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.)
EPA and FEMA recognize the multiple "co-benefits" of 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/natural disaster
protection measures.
FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance includes multiple grant programs that 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): FEMA's primary competitive pre-
disaster mitigation and resilience grant. BRIC provides funding to address future natural hazards,
including flooding, drought, wildfire, and extreme heat. BRIC funds can be used for on-the-
ground project implementation (including 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/additional capacity to advance climate resilience
planning and design of climate adaptation strategies.
• Flood Mitigation Assistance: Competitive grant that provides funding for on-the-ground projects
that reduce or eliminate the risk of repetitive flood damage to buildings insured by the National
Flood Insurance Program.
• Hazard Mitigation Grant Program: Noncompetitive grant that is available following a
presidentially declared disaster event. The program may be used to develop state or local HMPs
and support communities to rebuild in a way that reduces or mitigates future disaster losses.
• Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Post-Fire: Noncompetitive grant that supports communities in
implementing hazard mitigation measures after wildfire disaster events.
• Community Rating System: Voluntary incentive program that 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.
Chapter 11. Relationship to Other Federal Programs
67
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
To be eligible for certain types of FEMA funding, including Hazard Mitigation Assistance grants, the
Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. §5121 et seq., directs that state, territory, Tribal, and local governments develop
and adopt HMPs. These plans focus on pre-disaster planning and address all natural hazards that can
impact states and communities. Project applications for FEMA grants must be consistent with the HMP.
Hazard mitigation planning follows a five-year cycle. These are "living" documents that are formally
updated every five years. 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
11.3.2.1 Opportunities for NPSMPs
FEMA's emphasis on integrated planning efforts and using nature-based solutions provides an
opportunity for the NPSMP to bolster both NPS management and climate resilience. State NPSMPs are
encouraged to:
• Review the most recent state, Tribal, or local HMPs applicable to NPSMP priority watersheds.
Assess if and how threats to surface water and groundwater quality, collaboration with water
quality programs, or nature-based solutions are included in the current HMP mitigation
strategy/action items. Identify if any current "action items" or projects 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 areas where NPS critical areas and mitigation priority areas may
overlap. Discuss any current 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 §319 projects (see Chapter 8.7) to natural hazard mitigation/resilience
project stakeholders.
11.3.3 Additional Federal Collaboration Opportunities
The following describes additional federal agencies whose mission or efforts may intersect with NPS
management priorities and provides examples of opportunities for NPS programs to engage with these
agencies. These examples are not exhaustive and are meant to provide a starting point for engagement.
Chapter 11. Relationship to Other Federal Programs
68
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
NPS programs are encouraged to seek additional information on these federal agencies as the 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 NPS 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 Services 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.
Chapter 11. Relationship to Other Federal Programs
69
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
• 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. Additionally, 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 7.9.1).
• 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 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.
Chapter 11. Relationship to Other Federal Programs
70
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
Appendices
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
Appendix A. Key Components of an Effective State
Nonpoint Source Management Program
EPA expects all states 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 updated,
comprehensive program ensures that CWA §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.
EPA developed and updated the following components that characterize an effective state NPSMP with
input from state lead NPSMP control agencies.39 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 for 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. The
milestones built into the five-year program will provide 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 §319 grant
work plan. However, the annual milestones in the NPSMP should align with annual work plan actions
and be specific enough for the state to track progress and for EPA to determine satisfactory progress in
accordance with §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.
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
39 This is an update of Appendix A (Key Components of an Effective State Nonpoint Source Management Program)
from EPA's 2013 Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories.
Appendix A. Key Components of an Effective Nonpoint Source Management Program
A-l
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
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 example, CZARA requires implementation
through the state's NPSMP; therefore, a coastal state or territory with an approved coastal zone
management program incorporates the program elements required by CZARA §6217 into its NPSMP. In
this manner, the state ensures this program and other relevant baseline programs are integrated into
and consistent with §319 programs.
2. The state program identifies the primary categories and subcategories of NPS pollution, the risks
associated with changing climate conditions, any disadvantaged communities, and a process for
prioritizing impaired and unimpaired waters.
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 §§ 305(b), 319(a), 303(d), and 320, and in assessments and analyses of changing
land uses within the state) and revises its NPSMP plan priority lists periodically (at a minimum every five
years) as updated assessment information becomes available. The state also identifies important
unimpaired waters that are threatened or otherwise at risk from NPS pollution.
Biennial integrated reports will include a description of the nature and extent of nonpoint sources of
pollutants and recommendations for the programs that must be undertaken to control each category of
such sources, including an estimate of the costs of implementing these programs (CWA §305(b)(l)(E)).
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.
• Site-specific technical feasibility.
Appendix A. Key Components of an Effective Nonpoint Source Management Program
A-2
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
• The adequacy of existing water quality monitoring data or future monitoring commitments.
• The degree to which TMDL allocations assigned to point sources depend 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.
• Availability of and access to funding sources other than §319(h).
• The readiness and capacity to proceed among stakeholders.
In cases where states have prioritized protection efforts, they may wish to consider the following
scenarios for prioritizing the protection of healthy waters:
• Outstanding Natural 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., EPA Healthy Watersheds Integrated Assessments).
• Waters and watersheds identified as protection priorities in the CWA §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.
• Protecting 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 (see
https://geopub.epa.gov/dwwidgetapp/).
Different approaches for prioritizing waters for restoration and protection are available, including
several tools offered by EPA. For example, 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. 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 EPA's Cyanobacteria Assessment Network (CyAN) mobile application, a customizable app that
Appendix A. Key Components of an Effective Nonpoint Source Management Program
A-3
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
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. 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; for example, 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. For
example, improving water quality while also mitigating natural hazard impacts, increasing soil health,
improved filtration approaches, etc.
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 §319 work and demographic
indicators. Some states also have their own prioritization approach to consider stressors related to
climate change and advancing equity. The national NPS Program will continue to update analysis,
barrier, and action approaches on their NPS equity resources page.
3. The state program identifies BMPs and 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. The schedule containing annual milestones (component 1) will include implementation of
the BMPs by category, subcategory, and/or for particular nonpoint sources.
Understanding the BMPs that are best suited for the state's pollutants and climate is essential for
developing a strategy to address NPS pollution in varied landscapes. Being aware 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 strategy. Establishing preliminary suites of BMPs
supports development of a more-focused, local nine-element watershed plan. Several resources are
available to support establishing suites of BMPs, such as EPA's Critical Source Area Identification And
BMP Selection: Supplement To Watershed Planning Handbook. 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.
Appendix A. Key Components of an Effective Nonpoint Source Management Program
A-4
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
In addition, states might wish 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.
Schedules to implement and evaluate the states' NPSMPs, including BMP approaches, are discussed in
component 1, above.
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 that is 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 multidisciplinary science-
and policy-based framework that balances local, state, and federal objectives and allows for cost-sharing
and distribution of effort among diverse stakeholder groups. A watershed-based planning framework
addresses water quality problems in a holistic manner by fully assessing the causes and sources of
pollution and then prioritizing restoration and protection strategies to address these problems.
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.
The NPSMP plan will discuss the 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). By accounting for co-benefits 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 the following programs, as applicable:
• CWA §303(d) assessments and TMDLs
• CWSRF and DWSRF
• USDA Farm Bill conservation programs (e.g., NWQI, EQIP, Regional Conservation Partnership
Program, 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
Appendix A. Key Components of an Effective Nonpoint Source Management Program
A-5
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
• 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 (NOAA)
• Pesticide management
• Forestry, both federal (U.S. Forest Service) and state
• USACE programs
• BLM
• Other natural resource and environmental management programs, as needed
Because of the significant resources potentially available through USDA conservation programs, the
state makes a strong sustained effort to coordinate and leverage programs with USDA NRCS.
Similarly, 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. Federal programs subject to review by the state 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, EPA will work with other
federal agencies to enhance their understanding of the significance of NPS pollution, as well as to assist
in resolving particular issues that arise between the state and federal agencies with respect to federal
consistency. As EPA becomes aware of these issues, EPA works with the national NPS Program to
improve consistency among federal programs.
Appendix A. Key Components of an Effective Nonpoint Source Management Program
A-6
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
5. The state identifies and strengthens 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.
"People are the foundation that sets everything into motion to restore our watersZ'40
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 uses 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.
Many states have committed to actions that address barriers to increased equity, including waiving
nonfederal match for subrecipients, revising subaward application criteria to prioritize projects in
disadvantaged communities, and supporting communities as they begin to implement watershed
plans.41
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 further address barriers, 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, Tribal, and federal agencies
• 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.
40 National Nonpoint Source Program Highlights report (USEPA 2016)
41 Continued actions in FY23 to advance equity in the NPS program, September 2022
Appendix A. Key Components of an Effective Nonpoint Source Management Program
A-7
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
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 (CWA §319(h)ll), and
make satisfactory progress each year by meeting its schedule of annual milestones (per CWA
§319(b)(2)(C) and §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 EPA's GRTS effectively. The state employs sufficient
staff and appropriate programmatic and financial systems to manage §319 funds for maximum water
quality benefits while ensuring that §319 dollars and nonfederal match are used efficiently and
consistently with legal obligations. The state ensures that §319 funds complement and leverage funds
available for technical and financial assistance from other federal sources and agencies, including
funding through CWSRF, DWSRF, CWA §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. 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
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 describes a monitoring/evaluation strategy and a schedule to measure success in meeting
those goals and objectives. The state uses a process to assess both improvements in water quality and
new NPS impairments or threats. 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.
• CWA §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.
Appendix A. Key Components of an Effective Nonpoint Source Management Program
A-8
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
The state integrates monitoring and evaluation strategies with ongoing federal natural resource
inventories and monitoring programs.
The state's annual report, as required under CWA §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 also a national NPS Program reporting measure as reported through
the NPS Success Stories. NPS Success Stories and other significant milestones that are 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 A. Key Components of an Effective Nonpoint Source Management Program
A-9
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
Appendix B. Minimum Elements of a Watershed-Based
Plan
Although many different elements may be included in a watershed plan, EPA has identified nine
minimum elements that are critical for improving water quality. In general, EPA requires that nine-
element WBPs be developed before implementing project(s) using §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 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: 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 §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 or similarity 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 historic 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 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).
What does this mean ?
Your WBP source assessment should encompass the watershed of the impaired waterbody(ies)
and include 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
Appendix B. Minimum Elements of a Watershed-Based Plan
B-l
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
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 that will need 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 areas42 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
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,
42 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
Appendix B. Minimum Elements of a Watershed-Based Plan
B-2
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
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.
This includes 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 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 the adoption and long-term operation and maintenance of BMPs and support
stakeholder involvement efforts.
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. Conducting baseline monitoring and outreach
for implementing water quality projects are examples of activities that can start right away. It is
important that schedules not be "shelved" for lack of funds or program authorities; instead,
they should identify steps towards obtaining 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 f. 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 (IPM). The next milestone could be a 40% reduction after seven years, when 80%
Appendix B. Minimum Elements of a Watershed-Based Plan
B-3
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
of pesticide users are using IPM. 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). 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 B. Minimum Elements of a Watershed-Based Plan
B-4
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
Appendix C. State-by-State CWA §319 Allocation
This appendix sets forth, for each state, its percentage of the total allocation of CWA §319 dollars each
year. To calculate the allocation provided to a particular state in a particular year, do the following:
1. Begin with the total §319 funding appropriated by Congress for the year in question.
2. Subtract the current Tribal CWA §319 set-aside from the total §319 appropriation for
distribution to Indian Tribes. CWA §518(f) allows EPA to provide up to one-third of 1% of the
total §319 appropriation to Tribes. However, in light of the increasing number of §319-eligible
Tribes and the effects of the statutory cap in limiting Tribes' ability to establish and maintain
NPS programs, since fiscal year 2000, Congress has authorized the removal of the statutory cap
on the Tribal CWA §319 set-aside in its annual appropriations language. In fiscal year 2023, EPA
set aside 7.6% of the annual §319 appropriation to Tribes and articulated a long-term target of
increasing the Tribal CWA §319 set-aside to 12% to meet Tribal NPS program needs more fully.
3. Multiply the funds remaining after step 22 by the applicable state percentage below.
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
Region 5
Illinois 4.12
Indiana 2.25
Michigan 2.93
Minnesota 3.46
Appendix C. State-by-State CWA §319 Allocation
C-l
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
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 C. State-by-State CWA §319 Allocation
C-2
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
Appendix D. Guidance and Checklist for Determining
Progress of State NPSMPs and Performance of CWA
§319 Grants
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 §319 funds,
the 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 §319;
however, Section 5, below, applies only to states that include these funds in PPGs. Note that the Rate of
Expenditure analysis in Section 4(B), below, is not required for §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 CWA §319 grant management requirements, including those specified in binding
§319 grant guidelines available at www.epa.gov/nps/319. 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 towards a decision based on the 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)(iv)—does a "no" response constitute a de facto finding of
unsatisfactory progress per CWA §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 CWA §319 grant project officer for non-PPG awards and the CWA §319
NPSMP coordinator for states that include §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. CWA §319(h)(8) requires 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 CWA §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 CWA §319(h)(8), the §319 grant award for the coming year cannot be awarded.)
Appendix D. Guidance and Checklist for
Determining Progress of State NPSMPs and Performance of CWA §319 Grants
D-l
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
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' §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 §303(d) list? If not, have §303(d)-listed waters
shown progress towards achieving water quality goals? Have waters not on the §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 §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 §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 EPA's guidelines for CWA §319(h) grants? If no,
please explain.
B. Or, has the state provided state funding for watershed projects equal to its total §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 §319(h) grants, using existing post-award monitoring or
best professional judgment:
i) For states subawarding §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 §319(h) funds in the previous year's award within one year
per the current §319 grant guidelines?
Appendix D. Guidance and Checklist for
Determining Progress of State NPSMPs and Performance of CWA §319 Grants
D-2
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
B. Rate of Expenditures. For categorical grants, include and examine a summary of expenditures
for all open §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, EPA's
financial data warehouse. 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
§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.
Example: CWA §319(h) Funds, Rates of Expenditures (Unliquidated Obligations)
Based on Compass Federal Data Warehouse Online on
Grant #
FY
Project Period
Grant Award
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 CWA §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 §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?
Appendix D. Guidance and Checklist for
Determining Progress of State NPSMPs and Performance of CWA §319 Grants
D-3
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
6. Identifying and Addressing Performance Issues/Progress Concerns
A. Considering issues itemized on this checklist, briefly summarize any significant outstanding
§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, EPA
regions are to ensure that forthcoming §319 grant awards are contingent on completing
updates to these programs or milestones.
B. Are there other significant outstanding §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 to include in the next
grant award's terms and conditions to ensure satisfactory progress.
Appendix D. Guidance and Checklist for
Determining Progress of State NPSMPs and Performance of CWA §319 Grants
D-4
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
Appendix E. Nationally Consistent Programmatic CWA
§319 Terms and Conditions
A. Reporting Requirements
The recipient agrees to comply with all reporting requirements required by EPA regulation
(40 CFR part 35. 2 CFR part 200), §§ 319(h)(10) and (11) of the CWA, and by the Nonpoint Source
Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories (2013). Failure to comply with the
above-referenced reporting requirements may result in a disruption of grantee funding and/or
early termination of the grant agreement in accordance with 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 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 CWA §319(h)(ll) for the purpose of
annual reporting on progress under the state's NPSMP. The §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 §319 grant funding.
Appendix E. Nationally Consistent Programmatic CWA §319 Terms and Conditions
E-l
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
A.3. Grants Reporting and Tracking System
The recipient shall enter all mandated data elements into GRTS for NPS projects funded under
§319 of the CWA and any other data and/or information required by EPA or according to
deadlines specified by 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 §319 project into EPA's WQX system. All water quality data
generated with §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 §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 §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(d).
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(e), 2 CFR 200.208, and the 2 CFR 200.339 Remedies for Noncompliance.
B. Sufficient Progress/ Satisfactory Progress
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. 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, EPA may also consider the rate of expenditure of funds
(unliquidated obligations) and the findings from the most recent §319 performance and
progress determination (§319 (h)(8)) (see Appendix D - EPA's Guidance and Checklist for
Determining Progress of State NPSMPs and Performance of CWA Section 319 Grants).
Appendix E. Nationally Consistent Programmatic CWA §319 Terms and Conditions
E-2
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
C. Watershed-based Plans
Under the §319 guidelines, the use of §319 watershed project funds requires completing a WBP
that includes all the information in elements (a)-(i) as described in the §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 CWA §319-eligible Tribes as
subrecipients to implement project(s) consistent with an up-to-date, EPA-approved Tribal
NPSMP plan, which EPA will now consider as an acceptable alternative to a nine-element WBP.
Upon request by EPA, the recipient shall provide a copy of any WBP or acceptable alternative
plan funded under §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, §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
CWA §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 §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.
Appendix E. Nationally Consistent Programmatic CWA §319 Terms and Conditions
E-3
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
G. Limitation on Administrative Costs
In accordance with §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 CWA §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 at Clean Water Act Section 319 Non-Point Source Assistance
Agreements Public Awareness Terms and Conditions.
1. Outreach Signage Requirements
If the §319 award includes an outreach component, the recipient agrees to provide signage
that informs the public that the project is funded by EPA. The signage shall contain the EPA
logo. To obtain the appropriate EPA logo or seal graphic file, the recipient should send a
request directly to EPA's Office of Public Affairs (OPA) and include the EPA project officer in
the communication. Instructions for contacting OPA are available at
https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/using-epa-seal-and-logo. The EPA logo will be displayed
meeting the following specifications:
http://www.epa.gov/ogd/tc/epa logo seal specifications for infrastructure grants.pdf. If
the physical design of the sign allows, it should also include the following text:
"This project has been funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency."
or
"This cooperative project has been funded in part by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency."
Exceptions to including the EPA logo may be made by the EPA regional §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
§319 assistance agreement shall contain a statement that the materials or conference has
been funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Appendix E. Nationally Consistent Programmatic CWA §319 Terms and Conditions
E-4
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
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 §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 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 §319 Grant
For each TMDL developed with the support of §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.
Appendix E. Nationally Consistent Programmatic CWA §319 Terms and Conditions
E-5
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
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 (EPA 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 (EPA 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 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(mj).
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 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 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.
Green stormwater infrastructure - GSI used in these guidelines is synonymous with the term green
infrastructure, defined in the CWA 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 low-impact development, natural infrastructure, and nature-
based solutions. The definitions of these terms may vary slightly among organizations and industry
professionals; however, these concepts are generally captured in the CWA definition of green
infrastructure. GSI and green infrastructure are both terms used in planning and research to achieve
various ecosystem services. See the 2018 Water Infrastructure Improvement Act for information about
GSI element promotion.
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. As described in
these guidelines, states may use CWA §319 funding for activities to protect priority healthy waters,
consistent with their NPSMP.
Glossary-1
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
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 §319(b) of the CWA. For more details, see Chapter 3.3.
NPS program funds - Comprise up to 50% of the total state CWA §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 7.2.
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. It 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 in the plan,
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 5.7.
Watershed project funds - A state's or local group's (subrecipient's) on-the-ground watershed projects
that are implementing an accepted or approved watershed-based plan or alternative plan. These
projects should comprise at least 50% of a state's total CWA §319 grant. For more details, see
Chapter 7.3.
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.
Glossary-2
-------
Draft Revision for Public Comment
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories - October 30, 2023
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 §319: Nonpoint Source Management Programs
• Full Code of Federal Regulations
Reporting and Tracking
• EPA's Grants Reporting and Tracking System (GRTS)
• EPA's Nonpoint Source Success Stories
Guidance
• EPA §319 Grant Program information (overview, guidance, and resources)
• Nonpoint source pollution programs contacts (EPA and states)
Grant Information
• Performance partnership grants (National Environmental Performance Partnership System)
• EPA grants: General terms and conditions
• EPA grants: Policy resources
Information Resources -1
------- |