Water: Polluted Runoff
Program and Grants Guidance - FY1997 and Future Years - Assessment of State Programs
On this Page
SUGGESTED OUTLINE FOR ASSESSMENTS OF STATE PROGRAMS
The following suggested outline is designed for use by States and EPA Regional offices in evaluating the progress being made by States in reviewing, updating, revising, and implementing their State nonpoint source programs. The outline reflects the nine key program elements of successful State programs presented in Section III-A of this Guidance. The outline below breaks these elements down into component parts that will assist reviewers in evaluating State program effectiveness in achieving these nine program elements.
This outline may be used as a guide by Nonpoint Source Enhanced Benefits States for their self-assessments (see Section IV-A of this guidance) and by any other State that chooses to conduct a self-assessment, as well as by EPA Regions that conduct assessments of State programs. Regions and States choosing to use this outline may wish to tailor the components of particular elements to ensure that they most appropriately addresses particular regional or State needs.
1. The State program contains explicit short- and long-term goals, objectives, and strategies to protect surface and ground water.
- State program includes a vision statement.
- State has specific long-term goals that are linked to its vision and are directed towards the expeditious achievement and maintenance of beneficial uses of water.
- State has specific short-term (e.g., 1-5 year) objectives, expressed as activities, that are linked to its goals.
- State has identified measures and indicators that will be used to assess the State's success in achieving its goals and objectives.
- State has identified specific, expeditious milestones for its activities.
- State has identified implementation steps and the expected effects of those steps on its water resources.
2. The State strengthens its working partnerships and linkages with appropriate State, interstate, Tribal, regional, and local entities (including conservation districts), private sector groups, citizens groups, and Federal agencies.
- The State uses a State-wide collaborative team, nonpoint source task force, or advisory group, or other appropriate process, to provide for input and recommendations from representatives of Federal, State, interstate, Tribal, and local agencies, private sector groups and citizens groups, regarding nonpoint source program direction, project selection, and other similar aspects of program administration.
- The team, task force or advisory group meets regularly and promotes collaborative and inclusive decision making.
- The State program specifies procedures to provide for periodic public input into the program.
- The State effectively incorporates a variety of organizations and interests into its implementation of nonpoint source activities and projects.
- The State uses its partnerships effectively to avoid the transfer of problems among environmental media.
3. The State uses a balanced approach that emphasizes both State-wide nonpoint source programs and on-the-ground management of individual watersheds where waters are impaired and threatened.
- Annual or multi-year work plans contain nonpoint source implementation actions directed at both specific priority watersheds and activities of a State-wide nature.
- State tracks both State-wide activities and watershed projects.
- State has institutionalized its program beyond the annual implementation of 319-funded activities and projects.
- State uses an integrated watershed approach for assessment, protection and remediation that is well integrated with other water or natural resource programs.
4. The State program (a) abates known water quality impairments from nonpoint source pollution1 State nonpoint source programs should recognize the contribution of atmospheric deposition to nonpoint source-caused water quality problems and take general note of the success of the States' air pollution control programs in reducing atmospheric deposition. States are not expected to abate this source in the context of their NPS management programs. and (b) prevents significant threats to water quality from present and future activities.
- State has comprehensively characterized water quality impairments and threats throughout the State which are caused or significantly contributed to by nonpoint sources.
- State has comprehensively characterized reasonably foreseeable water quality impairments and threats that are likely to be caused by nonpoint source pollution in the future.
State program addresses all significant nonpoint source categories and subcategories.
- State program has identified specific programs to abate pollution from categories of nonpoint sources which cause or substantially contribute to the impairments identified in its assessments.
- State has identified specific programs to prevent future water quality impairments and threats that are likely to be caused by nonpoint source pollution.
5. The State program identifies waters and their watersheds impaired by nonpoint source pollution and identifies important unimpaired waters that are threatened or otherwise at risk. Further, the State establishes a process to progressively address these identified waters by conducting more detailed watershed assessments and developing watershed implementation plans, and then by implementing the plans.
- State water quality assessments (including those performed under section 305(b), 319(a), 303(d), 314, and others), along with analysis of changing land uses within the State, form the basis for the identification of the State's planned nonpoint source activities and projects.
- State activities focus on remediating the identified impairments and threats, and on protecting the identified at-risk waters.
- State has provided for public participation in the overall identification of problems to be addressed in the State program, and in the establishment of a process to progressively address these problems.
- State nonpoint source priorities are communicated to, consistent with, and reflected in program planning and implementation activities by other water resource management agencies operating within the State.
- State revises its identification of waters and revisits its process for progressively addressing these problems periodically (e.g., once every 5 years).
6. The State reviews, upgrades, and implements all program components required by section 319(b) of the Clean Water Act, and establishes flexible, targeted, and iterative approaches to achieve and maintain beneficial uses of water as expeditiously as practicable. The State programs include:
(a) An mix of water quality-based and/or technology-based programs designed to achieve and maintain beneficial uses of water; and
(b) A mix of regulatory, non-regulatory, financial and technical assistance as needed to achieve and maintain beneficial uses of water as expeditiously as practicable.
The State includes in its program and implements the following eight items:
- Identification of the measures to be used to control nonpoint sources of pollution, focusing on those measures which will be most effective to address the specific types of nonpoint source pollution prevalent within the State. These measures may be individually identified or presented in manuals or compendiums, provided that they are specific and are related to the category or subcategory of nonpoint sources. They may also be identified as part of a watershed approach towards achieving water quality standards, whether locally, within a watershed, or State-wide;
- Identification of programs to achieve implementation of the measures;
- Processes used to coordinate and, where appropriate, integrate various programs used to implement nonpoint source controls in the State;
- A schedule with goals, objectives, and annual milestones for program implementation; legal authorities to implement the program; available resources; and institutional relationships;
- Attorney General certification (if program is changed substantially);
- Sources of funding from Federal (other than 319), State, local, and private sources;
- Identification of Federal programs and projects that the State will review for their effects on water quality and their consistency with the State program; and
- Monitoring and other evaluation programs to help determine short- and long-term program effectiveness.
The State program also incorporates or cross-references existing baseline requirements established by other applicable Federal or State laws to the extent that they are relevant. Examples include but are not limited to:
- Approved State coastal nonpoint source pollution programs required by section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA);
- State Forest Management Practices Acts;
- State construction, erosion or nutrient management laws; and
- Federal or State transportation laws which govern construction site or maintenance pollution runoff.
7. The State identifies Federal lands and activities which are not managed consistently with State nonpoint source program objectives. Where appropriate, the State seeks EPA assistance to help resolve issues.
- The State reviews Federal financial assistance programs, development projects, and other activities that may result in nonpoint source pollution for consistency with the State program.
- The State works with Federal agencies to resolve potential inconsistencies between Federal programs and activities and the State programs.
- Where the State cannot resolve Federal consistency issues to its satisfaction, it requests EPA assistance to help resolve the issues.
The State coordinates with Federal agencies to promote consistent activities and programs, and to develop and implement joint or complementary activities and programs.
8. The State manages and implements its nonpoint source program efficiently and effectively, including necessary financial management.
- The State's plans for watershed projects and State-wide activities are well-designed, with sufficient detail to assure effective implementation.
- The State's watershed projects focus on the critical areas, and critical sources within those areas, that are contributing to nonpoint source problems.
- State implements its activities and projects, including all tasks and outputs, in a timely manner.
- State has established systems to assure that the State meets its reporting obligations.
- State utilizes the Grants Tracking and Reporting System effectively.
- State has developed and uses a fiscal accounting system capable of tracking expenditures of both 319 funds and non-Federal match.
- Nonpoint source projects include appropriate monitoring and/or environmental indicators to gauge effectiveness.
9. The State periodically reviews and evaluates its nonpoint source management program using environmental and functional measures of success, and revises its nonpoint source assessment and its management program at least every five years.
- The State has and uses a process to periodically assess both improvements in water quality and new impairments or threats.
- The State uses a feedback loop, based on monitoring and other evaluative information, to assess the effectiveness of the program in meeting its goals and objectives, and revises its activities and tailors its annual work plans, as appropriate, in light of its review.
- Using its feedback loop, the State periodically reviews and assesses the goals and objectives of the nonpoint source management program, and revises the program as appropriate in light of its review.
- The State's annual report successfully portrays the State's progress in meeting milestones, implementing BMPs, and achieving water quality goals.
MEASURES AND INDICATORS OF PROGRESS AND SUCCESS
To measure the progress and success of their nonpoint source programs, States will generally need to use at least three sets of measures. These include measures to indicate progress towards (1) the State's overall water quality vision of achieving and maintaining beneficial uses of water, (2) the long-term goals set by the State in its program (e.g., installing appropriate technology at all animal waste facilities that need to be upgraded, or implementing particular watershed projects) and (3) the shorter-term goals and objectives set by the State (e.g., successfully implementing a particular technology).
The following list illustrates measures and indicators which States may choose from or add that will help the States and the public measure the progress and success of their programs. States may identify and use other measures and indicators that are most relevant to their nonpoint source problems, programs, and projects. However, States must at least use the three measures of progress that are identified in section 319(h)(11), i.e., implementation milestones, available information on reductions in nonpoint source pollutant loadings, and available information on improvements in water quality.
Further, well-designed State programs will usually include several appropriate measures and indicators from each of the categories set forth below for each of their projects or program activities. For overall program status and trends, States will generally include measure 1.A. below as part of their section 305(b) reports.
EPA and its State, Federal and other public and private partners have adopted core indicators to report nationally to measure attainment of five specific objectives. These five objectives are preserving and enhancing public health; preserving and enhancing ecosystem health; supporting uses designated by States and Tribes in their water quality standards; conserving or improving ambient conditions; and reducing or preventing pollutants loadings and other stressors. For nonpoint source pollution control, these five objectives are characterized by the measures and indicators presented below.
The categories below are approaches which have been successfully used as water-quality and implementation measures and indicators , as well as measures of enhanced public education, awareness and action. They are presented as examples, not requirements, and should be used as starting points for discussion.
- Water Quality Improvement from Nonpoint Source Controls
- Number (or percentage) of river/stream miles, lake acres, and estuarine and coastal square miles that fully support all designated beneficial uses.
- Number (or percentage) of river/stream miles, lake acres, and estuarine and coastal square miles that come into compliance with one or more designated uses (e.g., a river segment that is neither fishable nor swimmable becomes fishable), or with one or more numeric water quality criteria (e.g., achieves a criterion for phosphorus while continuing to exceed a criterion for nitrogen).
- Demonstrable improvements in relevant surface and ground water quality parameters.
- Demonstrable improvements in biological or physical parameters (e.g., increase in diverse fish or macroinvertebrate populations, or improved riparian areas or other measures of habitat).
- Opening of previously closed shellfish beds
- Lifting of fish consumption advisories)
- Prevention of new impairments (e.g., number of river miles removed from the "threatened" lists, or number of miles of high-quality waters protected).
- Nonpoint Source Pollutant Load Reduction
- Reductions in pollutant loadings (e.g., by pounds or percentage) from nonpoint sources in impaired/threatened watersheds.
- Reductions in pollutant loadings (e.g., by pounds or percentage) from nonpoint sources in priority watersheds identified by the State.
- State-wide reduction in pollutant loadings from nonpoint sources.
- In the case of nonpoint source pollution which may result from activities conducted in the future, prevention or minimization of new loadings, and/or offset of new loadings by reductions from existing sources.
- Reductions in frequencies, or prevention of increases, of peak flows in developing or developed areas.
- 3. Implementation of Nonpoint Source Controls
- Number of measures implemented in watersheds of impaired/threatened waters (e.g., number of on-the-ground practices implemented that reflect, for example, the "best practicable" approach to solve the identified problem.)
- Percentages of "needed" measures implemented in watersheds of impaired/threatened waters (e.g., where watershed analysis has shown the need to implement measures at 20 sites, annual progress in implementing a watershed project can be shown by the number of BMPs installed.)
- Combination of 2.b and 3.b.
- Number of approved or certified plans written to address, e.g., erosion and sediment control, storm water, nutrient management, or pest management.
- Percent of watershed covered by plans described in item 3d.
- Percent of facilities covered by plans described in item 3d.
- Statistically-based survey of implementation rates, e.g. results of State-approved BMP use and effectiveness surveys.
- Percent of priority ground water addressed by nonpoint source controls.
- 4. Public Education, Awareness, and Action
- Participation rates in education programs specifically directed to solving particular nonpoint source pollution problems.
- Statistically-based survey of public awareness, knowledge, and action to measure changes in attitudes and action over time.
- Participation rates in various nonpoint source activities, such as citizen monitoring and watershed resource restoration activities.
- Participation rates in various public awareness and education efforts.
ELEMENTS OF A WELL-DESIGNED WATERSHED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
A well-designed plan for a successful watershed implementation project typically includes the following:
- Define the Problem
- Identification of water quality threat or problem - Information is provided on whether the water resource is threatened or its use is impaired from the nonpoint source assessment report, 303(d) list, 305(b) report, 314(a) list, or a consolidated State water quality assessment report. A State's comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program or ground water protection strategy may also be a useful sources of information.
- Critical areas - The approximate size and location of the critical areas to be treated is identified on a map and quantified. The critical areas are of an appropriate size to ensure that the measures implemented will have a significant impact on restoring or protecting designated beneficial uses within the watershed.
- Build a Project Team and Public Support
- Institutional roles and responsibilities - Roles and responsibilities of agencies active within the watershed are identified, regardless of funding source. All State, local, and Federal agencies that have potential roles to play in assisting ting in the design and implementation of the project are identified and included as appropriate in the project development and implementation process. Where possible, one agency at the local level is identified as the lead agency for the watershed project.
- Information/education and public participation component - The nonpoint source watershed plan documents how interested and affected publics are or will be involved in the selection, design and implementation of the watershed project. Additionally the educational activities to be conducted in the watershed project are identified, including a schedule. The project also includes a plan for communicating lessons learned to other areas of the State through the Statewide nonpoint source information and education program.
- Set Goals and Identify Solutions
- Nonpoint source control objectives - The nonpoint source watershed plan describes what is expected to be accomplished in a two to five year period. Objectives relate to all the identified water quality problems, are quantitative, and make progress towards achieving implementation of technology-based measures or achieving or maintaining State water quality standards. For example, where water quality standards are violated and a 75 percent reduction is needed to attain/maintain water quality standards, an objective might be to reduce fecal coliform loadings to a waterbody of 75 percent.
- Implement Controls
- Implementation schedule - A schedule describing the location and type of BMPs and programs to be implemented within the watershed and the projected time of implementation are provided within the plan. The plan also includes an estimate of the costs of the planned activities.
- Measure Success
- Monitoring and evaluation - Utilizing the project goals identified in the work plan, the plan should also provide an appropriate monitoring component to evaluate effectiveness, including ambient effects monitoring, beneficial use assessments, and environmental indicators (see Section II-A of this guidance and Appendix B).
SUGGESTED SCHEDULE FOR ISSUANCE OF SECTION 319(h) GRANTS
Note: The following schedules are presented as goals to accelerate the issuance of section 319 grants and to synchronize them with other Clean Water Act (and other Federal) grants to States. This acceleration is important not only to promote performance partnership grants and the National Environmental Performance Partnership System, but also to accelerate the draw-down of Federal funds in accordance with Congressional intent. Nonetheless, many practical difficulties may impede this acceleration, so EPA Regions and States may make adjustments as necessary.
|FY 97||FY 98 & BEYOND|
|EPA issues brief national guidance including annual planning targets (for planning purposes the President's request level will be assumed)||5/1/96||3/1|
|States submit draft work plans to EPA Regions||7/1||6/1|
|EPA Regions provide response to work plans||8/15||7/8|
|States submit final work plans and grant applications to EPA Regions||9/15||8/1|
|EPA Regions approve work plans and award grants||11/15||10/1|
GENERIC GRANT CONDITION ESTABLISHING
STATE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
The recipient (name of State lead nonpoint source agency) agrees to comply with all reporting requirements required by EPA regulation and sections 319(h)(10) and (11) of the Clean Water Act. All reporting information will be submitted according to the schedule(s) required in the Parts 31 and 35 regulations and in the "National Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidance For Fiscal Year 1997 and Future Years" or as subsequently amended. The three basic reporting categories include: Grantee Performance Reports [40 CFR, Part 31.40(b)(1)]; Nonpoint Source Progress Reports [CWA, section 319(h)(11)]; and Financial Status Reports [40 CFR, Part 31.41(b)].
The recipient agrees to use the Agency's Grants Reporting and Tracking System (GRTS) to provide all nationally mandated data elements listed in Appendix F of the national nonpoint source program and grants guidance. Failure to comply with the above referenced reporting requirements may result in a disruption of grantee funding and/or early termination of the grant agreement in accordance with 40 CFR Part 31.43.
NATIONALLY MANDATED DATA ELEMENTS UNDER SECTION 319
GRANTS REPORTING AND TRACKING SYSTEM (GRTS)*
Data Element Names
- NPS Program or Project Title
- NPS Category
- NPS Functional Category
- NPS Waterbody Type
- NPS Hydrologic Unit Code
- NPS Ground-water Code
- NPS Budget 319(h) Funds
- Number of State Employees (FTEs) by 319(h) Funds Under this Grant
- Amount of 319(h) Funds Allocated to Sub-State Recipients Under this Grant
- NPS Program or Project Start Code/Date
- NPS Program or Project Completion Code/Date
*Note: As described in section IV-D, States are required to use GRTS to report the specific nationally mandated data elements listed in this Appendix. These consist of the bare minimum of information needed by EPA to track State grant implementation nationally and to respond to inquires from constituent groups, OMB, and Congress. However, these nationally mandated data elements may be reviewed and individually negotiated by EPA and a State as a part of the National Environmental Performance Partnership System and as a part of a Performance Partnership Grant.
FACTORS IN PLANNING TARGET FORMULA
|I. Statutory set-aside for Indian Tribes||Sec. 106 allocation formula||0.0033||Sec. 518(f)|
|II. Other *|
|Minimum amount for the States and Territories||N/A||0.2643||All States, D.C., and territories receive funds to institutionalize NPS control activities & programs|
|1988 Section 305(b) Report||1988 Draft - 10/89||N/A||National data used to determine the weighting factors for ag., urban, mining, & forestry as indicated below.|
1987 Census (est.)
|0.2861||Factors include State fraction of national population, pop'n density, and pop'n growth.|
|Cropland Acreage||1987 Ag Census
1987 NRI data
1980 Census Data
1986 ASIWPCA NPS Report
|0.1581||Cropland is used as a surrogate for sediment and nutrient problems, which account for about 85% of ag NPS problems. Modeling approach based partly on 1986 ASIWPCA national data.|
|Pasture & Rangeland Acreage||1987 Ag Census||0.0205||Animal units & animal units/farm acre used as surrogate for BOD & bacteria problems, which account for about 11% of the ag NPS problem.|
|Forest Harvest Acreage||EPA||0.0429||Acreage of private & Federal forest harvested annually.|
|Wellhead Protection Areas||Wellhead Protection Program Allotment Formula-EPA||0.1135||Factors include relative risk to ground water, number or people potentially impacted, number of wellheads to be protected & size of states.|
|Critical Aquatic Habitats||Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetland Losses in the United States 1970's 1980's. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.||0.0500||State share of total wetland acreage is a meaningful surrogate for critical aquatic habitat since it covers both fresh and saline waters|
|Other Use Impact - 319(a)||N/A||N/A||All NPS factors for ag., urban, forestry & mining are based upon land-based activities, therefore addressing impaired & threatened waters.|
1980 RCA Appraisal
|0.0572||State's fraction of mined acres as surrogate for mining.|
1986 National Pesticide Usage Data Base, RFF, & EPA
|0.0074||Amount & rate of application of active ingredients for pesticides recommended for inclusion in EPA's National Pesticide Survey.|
* The weighting for Other Factors is based on the allocation after National set-asides have been subtracted from the total appropriated funds. As a result, the sum of the weighting for Other Factors is unity.
NOTE: These factors are unchanged from EPA's current formula.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 1993. Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993. Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance. Washington, D.C., 82 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Information Resources Management, 1995. Grants Information and Control System Nonpoint Source Subsystem Users Manual. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, August 1991. Watershed Monitoring and Reporting for Section 319 National Monitoring Projects. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, 1990. Nonpoint Source Monitoring and Reporting Requirements for Watershed Implementation Grants. Washington, D.C., 29 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, September 1994. Section 319 National Monitoring Program Projects: 1994 Summary Report.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X, October 1993. Monitoring Protocols to Evaluate Water Quality Effects of Grazing Management on Western Rangeland Streams. Seattle, Washington, 203 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, January 1992. Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319 of the Clean Water Act (1989). Washington, D.C., 197 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development and Office of Water, 1992. The National Rural Clean Water Program Symposium, 10 Years of Controlling Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution: The RCWP Experience. Washington, D.C., EPA/625/R-92/006, 400 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, 1990. Rural Clean Water Program: Lessons Learned from a Voluntary Nonpoint Source Control Experiment. Washington, D.C., 29 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, December 1987. Nonpoint Source Guidance. Washington, D.C., 47 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, September 1994. A Tribal Guide to the Section 319(h) Nonpoint Source Grant Program. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, November 1994. Section 319 Success Stories: A Close-Up Look at the National Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. Washington, D.C., 128 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, September 1992. State and Local Funding of Nonpoint Source Control Programs. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, August 1993. Summary of Current State Nonpoint Source Control Practices for Forestry. Washington, D.C., 203 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, August 1993. Water Quality Effects and Nonpoint Source Control for Forestry: An Annotated Bibliography. Washington, D.C., 241 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, July 1993. Managing Change: Livestock Grazing on Western Riparian Areas. Denver, Colorado, 31 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, April 1995. Cleaner Water Through Conservation. [BROKEN] Washington, D.C. 59 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, September 1991. Seminar Publication: Nonpoint Source Watershed Workshop. Washington, D.C., 209 pp.
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, March 1992. A Current Assessment of Urban Best Management Practices: Techniques for Reducing Non-Point Source Pollution in the Coastal Zone. Washington, D.C., 127 pp.
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, October 1992. Design of Storm water Wetland Systems. Washington, D.C., 133 pp.
Center for Watershed Protection, January 1994 (reprinted Jan. 1995 by the Terrene Institute). The Stream Protection Approach.
Northern Virginia Soil and Water Conservation District, July 1994. Developing Successful Runoff Control Programs for Urbanized Areas. Fairfax, Virginia, 94 pp.
Terrene Institute, August 1994. Fundamentals of Urban Runoff Management: Technical and Institutional Issues. Washington, D.C., 302 pp.
Terrene Institute, March 1994. Urbanization and Water Quality. Washington, D.C., 67 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, 1994. Watershed Protection: A Project Focus. Washington, D.C. EPA 841-R-95-003.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 1993. Program Plan for the Section 319 National Monitoring Program. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 1991. Watershed Monitoring and Reporting for Section 319 National Monitoring Program Projects. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 1992. Nonpoint Source Management System, NPSMS Version 3.01 User's Guide. Washington, D.C.
NATIONAL MONITORING PROJECTS FUNDED UNDER SECTION 319
|Eastern Snake River Plain||Idaho|
|Long Creek||North Carolina|
|Pequea and Mill Creek||Pennsylvania|
Note: For those not familiar with this program, a detailed description of the national nonpoint source monitoring projects is available from EPA.