Jump to main content or area navigation.

Contact Us

Water: Nonpoint Source Success Stories

Modifications to Nonpoint Source Reporting Requirements for Section 319 Grants

On this Page



September 27, 2001

MEMORANDUM


SUBJECT: Modifications to Nonpoint Source Reporting Requirements for Section 319 Grants

FROM: Robert Wayland, Director

Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds

TO: EPA Regional Water Division Directors

State Water Division Directors

Introduction

I am pleased to transmit to you the final changes to the reporting requirements for nonpoint source grants under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), which will become effective beginning in fiscal year 2002. These new reporting elements reflect the deliberation over the past year and a half by the Results Work Group, one of the seven State/EPA Nonpoint Source Partnership groups formed by EPA and the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA) to improve the quality of nonpoint source programs nationally. The changes were circulated as draft proposals in the March 19, 2001 memorandum, "Proposed Modifications to Nonpoint Source Reporting Requirements under Section 319: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS." EPA fully considered the comments made on that draft before deciding on these final changes.

The most significant new required reporting elements are to:

  • More precisely geolocate Section 319 projects, which will enable projects to be linked to information from Section 303(d) and other programs, and which will allow tracking of water quality improvements.
  • Report, where applicable, load reductions for nutrients and sediment.
  • Report, where applicable, acres of wetlands restored and created and feet of streambank protected and stabilized.
  • Provide a cost breakdown by main source category after project closeout.
  • Provide a full description of each project.

These and other changes are discussed in Attachment A of this memorandum. Attachment C has the complete listing of newly mandated fields or changes to existing mandated fields.

Background

Fiscal year 2001 is the twelfth year of State implementation of nonpoint source programs with Congressional funding. Congress has now appropriated over $1.3 billion to the States to implement their nonpoint source management programs. This is a large sum of money, and much has been accomplished. At the same time, this funding level is appropriately giving rise to more specific questions from Congress, the Office of Management and Budget, and the public as to how and where this money is being spent, and what water quality improvements are being achieved as the result of these Federal expenditures. Furthermore, under the Government Performance and Results Act, EPA's current commitments include reporting on water quality improvements and reducing nonpoint source loadings, especially for nutrients and sediment (including reduction of cropland erosion by 20% from 1992 levels).

Equally significant, Section 319(h)(11) requires States to report annually on what their nonpoint source programs are accomplishing, including available information on load reductions and actual water quality improvements. Therefore, EPA and the States have been working to improve our ability to account to the public what we are accomplishing with Section 319 funds.

The Section 319 Grants Reporting and Tracking System (GRTS) is the main reporting vehicle for the Section 319 program. This system has historically focused on limited aspects of Section 319 program implementation, most notably to generally identify where and how Section 319 money is spent. EPA, working with the Results Work Group, has identified several critical needs for improved reporting for the Section 319 program through GRTS that would enable us to address the concerns noted above. EPA has carefully focused the enhanced reporting elements to ensure that the modified GRTS requirements appropriately balance the need to provide good quality information on the results being achieved by the Section 319 program with the need to avoid onerous and duplicative reporting burdens for States. States' data entry and collection burdens should be eased by the now Web-enabled version of GRTS (see Appendix D), which allows for much more efficient, less problematic data-entry. The Web-enabled version of GRTS also allows subgrantees the ability to enter data into the system if States so choose, thus easing the burden on State GRTS staff.

It is our expectation that the new reporting elements will expedite States' ability to achieve the requirements of Section 319(h)(11) that States annually report available information on load reductions and actual water quality improvements. The portion of a State nonpoint source management program's load reductions attributable specifically to Section 319 projects can now be better ascertained. A subgroup of the Results Work Group is currently developing proposals and models for good State annual reports, which are the reporting vehicle for load reductions and other aspects of a State's nonpoint source management program under Section 319(h)(11). These improved reports will allow States to more effectively communicate the achievements of State nonpoint source programs.

Conclusion

We appreciate the hard work and extensive reviews of lists, models, and other documents by the State and EPA Regional members of the Results Work Group during the past year. We also thank the States and Regions for their comments on the proposals in the draft memorandum. EPA is excited by the possibilities that the upgraded GRTS will provide to all of us to report to elected officials, nonpoint source professionals, and the public what we are accomplishing in the nonpoint source program to solve our nation's water quality problems.

If you would like to discuss any issues with respect to describing and reporting nonpoint source results, please contact Charles Sutfin, (202) 260-7040. You may also have your staff contact Romell Nandi, (202) 260-2324.

Attachments:

Attachment A: Final Changes to Section 319 Reporting Requirements

Attachment B: Results Work Group Members

Attachment C: New or Changed Mandated Fields for GRTS

Attachment D: Web-Enabling GRTS

Attachment E: New "Category of Pollution" Picklist

Attachment F: New "Pollutant Type" Picklist

Attachment G: New "Functional Category of Pollution" Picklist

cc. (by e-mail):
EPA Regional Water Quality Branch Chiefs
EPA Regional NPS Coordinators
State NPS Coordinators
National GRTS Users' Group
EPA Regional Monitoring Coordinators
EPA Regional TMDL Coordinators

Top of page


Attachment A: Final Changes to Section 319 Reporting Requirements

I. Introduction

The Results Work Group is a joint EPA/State work group formed in February, 2000 to look at how the States and EPA can more effectively report to government officials and the general public on the results being achieved by State nonpoint source programs. The Work Group was subsequently folded into the State/EPA Nonpoint Source Partnership, which was formed at the National Nonpoint Source Meeting in Riverside, California in April, 2000.

The Results Work Group has held several conference calls, reviewed a number of ideas, and had many electronic mail exchanges. Additional input was provided by a number of State and EPA users of GRTS after these proposals were presented at the State/EPA National GRTS-Users Meeting in Philadelphia, November 13-16, 2000. Finally, EPA distributed and solicited State comment on a draft of this memorandum with attachments.

EPA would like to make a note here about the new Web-enabled version of GRTS. EPA has Web-enabled GRTS to allow greater access to the system. States do not have to have Lotus Notes on their desktop computer to access GRTS any longer -- States simply need a user-name and password. The Web-enabled GRTS will soon be migrated to a faster, more powerful server to allow for speedier processing of information. It should also be noted that the current Web-enabled version of GRTS does not allow members of the public to see a State's GRTS entries. In the near future, EPA will put a replica of GRTS onto a public-access server. At that point, the public will be able to view Section 319 project data in GRTS. However, data entry will still be made on the secure, private server. Please see Attachment D for further information on the advantages of the new Web-enabled GRTS.

EPA will provide more Regional GRTS-training in fiscal year 2002 so States can more easily learn how to use the Web-enabled GRTS, the Web-based Reach Indexing Tool (see Part II below), and the optional load reduction models (see Part IV-B below).

Each subsection below discusses a particular change to GRTS, which will be applicable beginning with the fiscal year 2002 grant cycle. Any project using FY 2002 funds should enter the new mandated reporting elements into GRTS.

II. Geolocating Section 319 Projects

The new geolocational field will replace the current field, where States enter 8-digit "hydrologic unit code" (HUC) information. Since the first 8 digits of a 14 digit stream reach code is the 8-digit HUC, States will still be able to search the system using 8-digit HUC as a search parameter.

Because 8-digit HUC watersheds can be over 1 million acres in size, more specific geolocational information for Section 319 projects is needed for the public to get a better indication of the activities and results within a local watershed. In addition, demarcating Section 319 projects on the GIS display of the Water Assessment and Tracking Environmental Results System (WATERS -- see below) will enable us to relate the projects to waters listed under Section 303(d) and (eventually) to waters assessed under Section 305(b) (for those States which georeference their 305(b)-assessed waters). Therefore, geolocational information will now be reported at the stream reach level (which also includes information on lakes and many other water bodies). Specifically, reach codes of the affected stream segments must be entered into the geolocational field of GRTS. EPA will periodically pull this geolocational information out of GRTS and digitize it in the GIS display of WATERS.


The initial release of WATERS (www.epa.gov/waters) identifies:

  • designated uses for a given waterbody
  • whether a reach is listed on a State's 303(d) list
  • what pollutants are impairing the reach (if applicable)

We anticipate that future releases of WATERS will be able to, among other things:

  • identify where TMDLs have been done, and link to a written TMDL for a given area (if applicable)
  • give the level of use support for those 305(b) waters which have been georeferenced
  • identify improvements in water quality over time

States can use one of two methods to obtain the proper geolocational information and enter this information into GRTS. One way is to use WATERS' GIS interface to locate Section 319 projects on specific reaches (which can also be identified by name). WATERS will allow a user to select a State, and then zoom in on a map by choosing a city, county, lat/long, 8-digit HUC watershed, or zip code. Then, further features (such as schools, hospitals, major roads, etc.) can be used to further locate where a user is on the map. In this manner, those using GRTS should be able to quickly and easily identify on the display in WATERS which stream segments are being affected by the given Section 319 project. Clicking on a digital display of a given stream reach will then bring up the numerical reach code for that stream segment. The GRTS-user will then be able to copy and paste that stream reach code into the geolocational field of GRTS.

Since this method only allows a user to enter one stream reach code at a time into GRTS, EPA is currently developing a second method, which will allow GRTS-users to simultaneously transfer multiple stream reach codes into GRTS using a Web-based Reach Indexing Tool. This tool will be available by early fall, 2001. Users will then be able to use the tool to collectively import the stream reach codes for all of the streams affected by a given Section 319 project at once into the geolocational field of GRTS. Training on the Web-based Reach Indexing Tool will become part of regular GRTS training.

Please note that EPA is not requiring information on where Best Management Practices (BMPs) themselves are being placed, but rather is requesting the identification of streams which are directly receiving benefits from a particular Section 319 project. For example, a State will not have to locate where a particular animal feeding operation is being addressed through a Section 319 project; instead, it will locate the stream reach or reaches which are being directly affected by that project as a whole. The stream reaches identified in this manner should not be every reach downstream of the project that may potentially receive benefits from the project, but only those reaches which the project benefits directly.

Other methods for geolocating Section 319 projects were also considered. Geolocating by watersheds or by latitude/longitude were rejected for several reasons. Watershed identification would not provide the specific link between Section 319 projects and individual Section 303(d)-listed and 305(b)-assessed waters. In addition, most 14-digit HUCs (normal size range from 10,000 to 40,000 acres) have not been delineated, and an even smaller number have been checked for accuracy of their delineations. Even smaller watersheds, insofar as they have been delineated at all, would still lack precision in linking Section 319 projects to specific impaired waters. By linking Section 319 projects to specific stream reaches, linkages to impaired segments can be made in WATERS. Finally, watershed delineations will be changing as a result of a long-term effort being conducted by the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC). FGDC is working to create a nationally consistent set of watersheds.

The use of latitude/longitude was rejected (except under the particular circumstances explained below) because a single point cannot accurately reflect the extent of a watershed project. Even using several latitude/longitude points is problematic. Many Section 319 project BMPs are land-based, and EPA would be forced into the position of translating which waters a project is affecting from latitude/longitude information in order to make the connection between Section 319 projects and Section 303(d) (and eventually 305(b)) data.

Geolocational information will not be required for projects that apply statewide or involve activities that otherwise do not lend themselves to precise geolocation. Such projects can be identified in a currently mandated GRTS field called "Primary Functional Category of Activity," where the broad-brush type of activity that the project falls under is covered (see Attachment G). This field is limited to one entry. There is also a "Secondary Functional Category of Activity" field which is optional, and which is not limited in the number of entries that can be made.

If one of the following options is entered into the Primary Functional Category of Pollution field, the system itself will automatically enter "Not Applicable" for the geolocational field of GRTS:

100 Statewide Education/Information Programs

201 Nonpoint Source Program Overall Coordination/Management

202 Nonpoint Source Project Staffing

410 Geographic Information Systems

600 Local (Specific Target) Education/Information Programs

Furthermore, since groundwater is not depicted in WATERS, States will enter a central lat/long point for such projects in GRTS (i.e. groundwater geolocational information will exist in GRTS, but will not be digitized in WATERS). Estuaries also lack 14-digit reach codes, although estuaries are graphically displayed in WATERS; therefore, States may geolocate estuary projects in one of two ways: (1) pick a central lat/long point for the project (which will literally be displayed as a point in the GIS display of WATERS), or (2) for those with access to a GIS, send EPA a shapefile or other coverage of the project (with the project number), which EPA will then use to depict the area of the project in WATERS. There are stream reach codes for reaches running along estuaries - these reaches should still be designated by reach codes.

III. Water Quality Improvement

Water quality improvements from nonpoint source programs or projects will not be reported in GRTS. A future release of WATERS will demarcate where there have been improvements in water quality for impaired waters, including waters which are being or have been addressed by Section 319 projects. Therefore, water quality information need not be recorded within GRTS itself - instead, this information will be available through WATERS.

States that are currently performing monitoring to measure changes over time in the ambient quality of the water associated with Section 319 projects are strongly encouraged to enter this information into EPA's Storage and Retrieval (STORET) database. STORET will also be linked to WATERS in a future release. States may also enter such information into the existing optional Project Evaluation field of GRTS (see below).

IV. Load Reductions

This field does not exist in the current version of GRTS, although there is a similar optional field (see below).

  • General Load Reduction Requirements

Section 319 (h)(11) requires States to report annually on what their nonpoint source programs are accomplishing, including available information on load reductions and actual water quality improvements. Although this section of the Clean Water Act refers to more than just what the Section 319 program is accomplishing, information about Section 319 projects can facilitate this reporting.

EPA also understands that many projects mix Section 319 funding with funding from other programs. Generally, States should be able to identify BMPs implemented using Section 319 funds as opposed to BMPs implemented using funds from other programs; however, to the extent that States do not make this distinction, load reductions should be reported for the entire project. When reporting on programmatic accomplishments to the Office of Management and Budget, Congress, and others, EPA will make this caveat clear.

EPA will now require that load reduction information for Section 319 implementation projects be entered into GRTS. The load reduction field within GRTS will be mandated for projects that address nitrogen (lbs/year), phosphorus (lbs/year), and sediment (tons/year).

For certain types of projects, load reduction information would not be relevant and thus would not be required. Load reductions will not be required under either of the two following conditions:

1) There will be a mandatory check-off box for whether or not the project is a BMP implementation project that addresses nutrients and/or sediment. If it is not a BMP implementation project that addresses nutrients and/or sediment, then the system will automatically enter "Not Applicable" into the load reduction field. Questions about whether a particular project constitutes a "BMP implementation project that addresses nutrients and/or sediment" should be addressed to the appropriate EPA Region. If it is deemed necessary, EPA will provide further guidance on this issue in the future.

2) If the pollutant chosen in the "Pollutant Type" field (see part XI below) is "Cause Unknown," then "Not Applicable" will automatically be entered into the Load Reduction field.

For projects addressing pollutants other than nutrients or sediment, EPA strongly encourages load reduction or change in concentration information whenever this information is available. An optional load reduction field for pollutants other than nutrients or sediment will be placed under the mandated load reduction field. Other types of available information for a given project may be entered into the existing optional Project Evaluation field.

Given the significant resources that would need to be expended to calculate load reductions using monitoring, States may enter modeled estimates for load reductions without empirical confirmation of results from monitoring (see discussion below). Monitoring estimates can be used if the State so chooses.

BMPs for a given Section 319 project are sometimes changed between the project proposal stage and the implementation stage, and even through the implementation stage. Therefore, EPA will not require that load reduction predictions be entered into GRTS at the time the grant is awarded. Instead, States will begin to enter load reduction numbers into GRTS after the first year of project implementation, and make any necessary changes in load reduction calculations based on further implementation at least annually thereafter. This will facilitate States' compliance with the requirement in Section 319(h)(11) to annually report load reductions.

The current optional "Environmental Results" field in GRTS, which allows for entry of load reductions, will be adjusted as necessary based on the changes articulated here.

Some Section 319 projects are intended to prevent pollution, rather than reduce existing pollution (for example, land easement or acquisition projects that prevent or modify development). If a State has a dependable way of quantitatively measuring pollution prevention of nutrients or sediment, this estimate may be entered into the load reduction field. However, entering information would only be required in the case of actual reductions.

Any use of load reduction information reported in GRTS or extracted in reports will include appropriate explanations as to how the data or estimates were developed and tabulated. Conclusions will be caveated appropriately. Furthermore, EPA will only use load reduction figures in GRTS as one part of the total picture given to the Office of Management and Budget, Congress, or the public as to what the Section 319 program is accomplishing. Any formal report that EPA creates which utilizes load reduction and water quality improvement information will also include narrative descriptions of other accomplishments of the program, such as educational accomplishments.

  • Load Reduction Models

States that currently model load reductions for nutrients or sediment for Section 319 projects may continue to use their current methods or models. Below the load reduction field, there will be a mandated field for the State to indicate whether it used monitoring or modeling for estimating its load reduction figure. If modeling is used, the name of the model used should be entered, as well. Furthermore, load reductions should be reported in consistent units regardless of the model used for these calculations (lbs/year for nutrients and tons/year for sediment).


For those States that do not currently model or monitor load reductions, we will provide two relatively simple optional models for States to choose from that will be directly accessible through GRTS. One of these models (the "Spreadsheet Tool for Estimating Pollutant Load" or "STEPL") is currently being refined for use in determining load reductions. A manual on the use of this model will be made available to States.

The other model (the "Region 5" model) uses some long-used equations to help determine load reductions (such as the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation, the Gully Erosion Equation, and the Channel Erosion Equation). EPA will provide States a manual through GRTS which will explain the calculations behind the Region 5 model (it is not an instructional manual on the model itself; however, using the model is not difficult once one understands how to get the input parameters).

EPA will provide training on the use of these two optional models as part of regular GRTS-training. EPA will provide Region-specific GRTS-training for the States in at least some Regions starting in fiscal year 2002.

We appreciate the difficulty of drawing a regional or national picture of what the Section 319 program is accomplishing with respect to load reductions when States are not using the same methods for calculating load reductions. We also recognize the limitations of using models (or even monitoring) for determining load reductions. However, for purposes of reporting through GRTS, we believe that the vast majority of models a State might use would be adequate for providing a rough estimate of load reductions.

For those states that have reservations about the rough estimate load reduction figures they are providing through GRTS, we will have an optional narrative field underneath the load reduction field where a State may enter any appropriate explanations about the accuracy of the load reduction figure it is providing. This may include anything from a description of the limitations of the particular model they are using to the inclusion of any confidence statistics on the load reduction number the State may have.

V. Wetlands/Streambanks/Shorelines

In addition to calculating load reductions for sediment and nutrients, EPA believes it is also critical to account for the successful implementation of several key practices that not only reduce loads, but protect the biological and physical characteristics of waterbodies. There will be a mandated field that will track the following measures if relevant to the project:

  • Wetlands restored (acres)
  • Wetlands created (acres)
  • Streambank and Shoreline Protection (feet)
  • Stream Channel Stabilization (feet)

This field would be filled after the first year of implementation, and then updated at least annually thereafter. A State could enter "Not Applicable" if none of these practices is being implemented.

VI. TMDL status for Section 319 projects addressing TMDLs

Given the prominent need for States to address impaired waters, GRTS will add a mandated field describing the link a given project has to TMDLs. A dropdown box will enable the user to pick one, two, or three of the following options:

"Funds from this project are being used for:"

  • Developing a TMDL(s)
  • Developing a TMDL implementation plan(s)
  • Implementing a TMDL(s)
  • Project does not address a TMDL(s)

If "Project does not address a TMDL(s)" is chosen, then no other option may be chosen.VII. Reformatting of Primary Category of Pollution field

The Category of Pollution field is divided into "Primary" and "Secondary" fields. In the modified GRTS, data entry into the mandated Primary Category of Pollution field will be restricted to main source categories (i.e. agriculture, silviculture, etc. -- see Attachment E). A dropdown box will be used for the Primary field to restrict what options can be entered. The Primary Category of Pollution field is currently designed so that only one entry can be made in that field. This will be changed so that up to five main source categories may be entered into the Primary Category of Pollution field.

Some Section 319 projects do not lend themselves to easy categorizations of individual pollutants. Therefore, there will be a new entry option for the Primary Category of Pollution field called "All Sources." This option will only be available for certain types of projects that address all sources of pollution.

If (and only if) one of the following options is entered into the Primary Functional Category of Activity field (which is limited to one entry), the user will be able to choose "All Sources" on the Primary Category of Pollution list:

100 Statewide Education/Information Programs

201 Nonpoint Source Program Overall Coordination/Management

202 Nonpoint Source Project Staffing

410 Geographic Information Systems

600 Local (Specific Target) Education/Information Programs

In all other cases, the user would have to individually select all the sources being addressed by a given project.

VIII. Expenditure breakdown for main source categories in Primary Category of Pollution field

In order to discern approximately what percentage of project dollars is going for what source of pollution, States must enter what percentage of dollars goes for what aspect of the project in the Primary Category of Pollution field. States would do this only once for each project, while initiating project closeout.

Here is an example of what the Primary Category of Pollution field may look like:

Primary Category of Pollution:

1000 Agriculture (50%) 4000 Urban Runoff/Stormwater (25%)

2000 Silviculture (25%)

Dollar percentage breakdowns will not be required for subcategories in the Secondary Category of Pollution field.

This approach will allow States and EPA to provide a somewhat more accurate estimate of how Section 319 dollars are being spent. For example, at present a search for all agriculture projects will fail to identify the dollars expended on the agricultural components of larger watershed projects. The proposed system will help rectify errors such as this.

The proposed architecture will tie the percentages in the Primary Category of Pollution field to the dollar amount brought up by the search. Therefore, if total project costs of an agriculture project are $50,000, and the field entry is "Agriculture (50%)," the cost figure brought out by a search using the main source category "Agriculture" will be $25,000. This figure more accurately reflects what is actually being spent on agriculture.

IX. Mandatory Reporting of the Subcategory Level in the Secondary Category of Pollution Field

The Secondary Category of Pollution field will now also be mandated. This field will now be restricted to sub-source categories (e.g. "forest harvesting" -- see Appendix E). A dropdown box will be used for the Secondary field to restrict what options can be entered.

If (and only if) one of the following options is entered into the Primary Functional Category of Activity field, the user will be able to enter "All Sources" into the Secondary Category of Pollution lists:

100 Statewide Education/Information Programs

201 Nonpoint Source Program Overall Coordination/Management

202 Nonpoint Source Project Staffing

410 Geographic Information Systems

600 Local (Specific Target) Education/Information Programs

In all other cases, the user will have to individually select all the sources being addressed by a given project.

X. Best Management Practices

This field has been optional in the past, but will now be mandated. The field will only require the name of the BMP(s), not where it is located. EPA will provide a more comprehensive list than the current BMP picklist for states to choose from. Furthermore, the State will be able to type a BMP name into the field if the BMP is not listed on the picklist. There will also be a "Not Applicable" option on the picklist.

We will also provide an option to record BMP units (e.g. number of feet of terraces); however, unit information will not be mandated.

XI. Pollutant Type

States must identify specific pollutants in most cases (see Appendix F). However, an "All Pollutants" option will be available if (and only if) one of the following options is entered into the Primary Functional Category of Activity field:

100 Statewide Education/Information Programs

201 Nonpoint Source Program Overall Coordination/Management

202 Nonpoint Source Project Staffing

410 Geographic Information Systems

600 Local (Specific Target) Education/Information Programs

States will also still have the option of entering "Cause Unknown," if the pollutant the project is addressing is unknown. If the State wishes to enter a pollutant that is not on the picklist, it will be able to do so, as well. The number of entries into this field is not limited.

XII. Project Description

The newly mandated field includes: a brief description of the problem being addressed, project goals, and other anticipated deliverables/benefits (if applicable).

Additional information may be included in the Project Description field at the user's option. This field would be filled in before the start of a project. If there are changes in project goals, anticipated deliverables/benefits, etc., the State may change the initial entry in the Project Description field.

If the State prefers to report changes in goals, deliverables, etc. in project reports in the optional Project Evaluation field rather than changing the initial Project Description, they may do so.

The Project Description field will have a standard template that includes all of the elements listed above.

XIII. Project Reports

We are not mandating that project reports must be reported through GRTS. However, GRTS is already configured so that project reports can be attached at the user's option in the Project Evaluation field mentioned above, and some States have chosen to do so. This field is especially useful for tracking project benefits other than load reductions, such as educational pamphlets produced, improvements in biota, etc. We strongly encourage States to use the system for this purpose, as it facilitates the availability of information to EPA and other States who may benefit from reviewing information about projects across the country. Reporting in this field can be done in lieu of doing project reports on paper.

Furthermore, the new Web-enabled GRTS is currently configured so that a State can submit Section 319 grant workplans in a "pre-award" field. Only those specifically authorized by the State may see the data a State enters into this particular field of GRTS. If a State and Region agree to the process, State Section 319 grant workplans may be entered into GRTS using this field, in lieu of paper reporting (it is not nationally mandated that States use the pre-award field to turn in Section 319 grant workplans).

XIV. Other Changes to GRTS

Following is a list of other changes to GRTS, including the addition of new optional fields:

  • New picklist for Primary and Secondary Category of Pollution fields.
  • New picklist for Pollutant Type field
  • Optional field for load reductions for pollutants other than nutrients or sediment.
  • Optional field for a brief narrative on any reservations or qualifications a State has with respect to the load reduction number it is providing.
  • Optional unit information for BMPs.
  • Optional simple check-off for private, Federal, State, or county/municipal land manager.
  • Optional "Key Partners" field. This would be to identify the key implementers of the project.
  • Eliminate "Groundwater Code" field (this is already covered under a field called "Affects this type of waterbody").

The picklists for "Category of Pollution," "Pollutant Type," and "Functional Category of Activity" have been altered based on comments from the Results Work Group, GRTS-users, and others. The new picklists are shown in Attachments E, F, and G.

The existing picklists for "Category of Pollution" and "Pollutant Type" (both the names of the sources and pollutants and the numerical codes for them) come from an older version of the Section 305(b) national sources and pollutants lists. The Section 305(b) list has changed somewhat over time, but the commensurate changes in GRTS had not been made until now. The new picklists for sources and pollutants in GRTS will also be used for the next national Section 305(b) list (although Section 305(b) will include some point source options that GRTS will not have).


Top of page


Attachment B: Results Work Group Members

Aston, Jody Virginia DCR

Chartier, Gerard NY DEC

Claggett, Richard EPA Region 8

Collins, Jim North Dakota HD

Cote, Mel EPA Region 1

Dabolt, Thomas EPA headquarters

Davis, Peter EPA Region 7

Fallon, Anna EPA Region 4

Hill, Rick Virginia DCR

Hopkins, Rick Vermont DEC

Kamin, Jamie ASIWPCA

Kunkoski, Don EPA headquarters

Lamb, Brad EPA Region 6

Lathrop, Barbara Pennsylvania DEP

Lee, Marie EPA Region 8

McCloud, Susan Indiana DEM

Miller, Susan Hawaii DBEDT

Mollahan, Richard Illinois EPA

Nandi, Romell EPA headquarters

Nuhfer, Mark EPA Region 4

Patterson, Kenneth Pennsylvania DEP

Pierard, Kevin EPA Region 5

Reichgott, Christine EPA Region 10

Reichert, Michael Utah DEQ

Rice, David Mississippi DEQ

Ristau, Scott Illinois EPA

Rohr, Carl Pennsylvania DEP

Schrodt, Barbara EPA Region 6

Shannon, Becky Missouri DNR

Shileikis, Audrey EPA Region 9

Sloate, Kenneth Maryland DNR

Somboonlakana, Donna EPA Region 2

Stone, Wes Indiana DEM

Suffian, Fred EPA Region 3

Voerman, Gary EPA Region 10

Vicory, Alan ORSANCO

Weitman, Dov EPA headquarters

Top of page


Attachment C: New or Changed Mandated Fields for GRTS


Following is a summary list of forthcoming new or changed mandated fields in GRTS. Please note that most of these are check-off boxes or otherwise very simple entries:

  • Stream Reach Code

This field will replace the current field where States enter 8-digit HUC information.

  • Load Reductions (Nutrients and/or Sediment)

This field currently does not exist, although there is a similar optional field which will be adjusted.

  • BMP Implementation Project (for nutrients, sediment) check-off

This field currently does not exist. It is a simple yes/no check-off box. If the "yes" box is checked, then a load reduction estimate must be entered in the Load Reduction field.

  • Modeling or Monitoring check-off

This field currently does not exist. It will be a check-off box where States will indicate whether they used monitoring or modeling to estimate load reductions. There will also be a "Not Applicable" option.

  • Name of Model

This field currently does not exist. States will enter the name of the model they used to do their load reduction estimates, or enter "Not Applicable."

  • Wetlands/Streambanks/Shorelines

This field does not currently exist, and would track wetlands created and restored, streambanks stabilized, and shoreline protected if applicable to the project.

  • Link to TMDLs check-off

This field currently does not exist. It would be a simple check-off box addressing the type of link (if any) the project has to TMDLs.

  • Reformatting of Primary Category of Pollution field

Primary Category of Pollution is currently mandated; however, it will be reformatted to only allow entry of main source categories.

  • Expenditure breakdown for main source categories in Primary Category of Pollution field

EPA will now require that dollars be estimated for each main source category after the project is closed out.

  • Secondary Category of Pollution

This is currently an optional field. Only sub-source categories will be entered into this field.

  • Best Management Practices

This is currently an optional field.

  • Pollutant Type

This is currently an optional field.

  • Project Description

This field is currently an optional field. The field would now have a standard format.

Top of page


Attachment D: Web-Enabling GRTS

EPA has now Web-enabled GRTS for the purpose of making data entry easier. States do not have to have Lotus Notes on their desktop computer to access GRTS any longer -- States simply need a user-name and password. It should also be noted that the current Web-enabled version of GRTS does not allow members of the public to see a State's GRTS entries. In the near future, EPA will put a replica of GRTS onto a public-access server. At that point, the public will be able to view Section 319 project data in GRTS. However, data entry will still be made on the secure, private server. There are many advantages to having a Web-enabled GRTS:

Local Desk Top (Current Practice) Web-Accessible Version

Limited number of people can perform data entry No limit on number of people who can perform data entry

Local replica on desk top PC No local replica; local data on web site

Must replicate to national server No replication; work direct on web

to update data site

Must replicate to national server No replication; templates automatic

to inherit templates

Must use user id & password Must use user id & password; also web site password protected

Replication conflicts are part of operations No replication conflicts

Chance of losing data No chance of losing data

Must purchase site licenses and Lotus Notes No Lotus Notes upgrades; license for

upgrades server use under discussion

Notes must be installed on individual PC No need to install Lotus Notes on PC; access is through web

Major effort to add additional users Additional users added very easily

Great deal of functionality with local No loss of functionality on web;

replica in some areas functionality is better

Training is state/regionally based Training could be web-accessible

Conflict between versions of Lotus Notes All users access the same version of Lotus Notes

Top of page


Attachment E: Draft Revised "Category of Pollution" Picklist

Notes:

(A) Some subcategories listed below have not yet had codes assigned to them.

  • Up to five main categories may be entered into the Primary Category of Pollution field An unlimited number of subcategories may be entered into the Secondary Category of Pollution field, but at least one corresponding subcategory must be entered for each main category entered.
  • "All Sources" can be picked only if use Primary Functional Category of Activity codes 100, 201, 202, 410, 600
  • Codes do not always fall in strict ascending numerical order because some existing subcategories have now been moved under main categories whereas before they were free standing.
  • If it is unclear exactly how a given project should be categorized with the options below, the State should use its best judgment.

Code Main Category Subcategory

0000 All Sources

1000 Agriculture

1100 - Non-irrigated crop production

1200 - Irrigated Crop Production

1300 - Specialty Crop Production (e.g. horticulture, citrus, nuts, fruits)

1350 - Grazing-Related Sources

1400 - Pasture Grazing

1500 - Range Grazing

1700 - Aquaculture

1600 Animal Feeding Operations (NPS)

2000 Silviculture

2100 - Harvesting, Residue Management

- Reforestation

2200 - Forest Management (e.g. pumped drainage, fertilization, pesticide application)

2300 - Logging Road Construction/Maintenance

3000 Construction

3100 - Highways, Roads, Bridges

3200 - Land Development or Redevelopment

Code Main Category Subcategory


4000 Urban Runoff/Stormwater

- Municipal

- Commercial

- Residential (e.g. non-commercial automotive, pet waste, etc.)

4400 - Illicit Connections/Illegal Hook-ups

- Dry Weather Flows

4500 - Highway/Road/Bridge Runoff

4600 - Post-Development Erosion and Sedimentation

8900 - Salt Storage Sites

5000 Resource Extraction

5100 - Surface Mining

5200 - Subsurface Mining

- Open Pit Mining

5300 - Placer Mining

5400 - Dredge Mining

5500 - Petroleum Activities

5600 - Mill Tailings

5700 - Mine Tailings

5800 - Abandoned Mine Drainage

- Sand/Gravel Mining

6000 Land Disposal/Storage/Treatment

6200 - Wastewater

6300 - Landfills

6350 - Inappropriate Waste Disposal

6400 - Industrial Land Management

6500 - On-Site/Decentralized Wastewater Treatment

6600 - Hazardous waste

6700 - Septage Disposal

8200 - Waste Storage/Storage Tank Leaks (above

ground)

8250 - Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

7000 Hydromodification


Code Main Category Subcategory

7100 - Channelization

- Channel Erosion/Incision

7200 - Dredging

7300 - Dam Construction

7350 - Upstream Impoundment

7400 - Flow Regulations/Modification

7550 - Other Habitat Modification

7600 - Removal of Riparian Vegetation

7700 - Streambank or Shoreline Modification/Destabilization

7800 - Drainage/Filling of Wetlands

8920 - Groundwater Withdrawal

7900 Marinas and Recreational Boating

- Pumpouts

- Sanitary On-Vessel Discharges

- Other On-Vessel Discharges

- Boat Construction

- Boat Maintenance

- Shoreline Erosion

- Fueling

- Dredging

Turf Management

8710 - Golf Courses

- Yard Maintenance

- Other Turf Management

Historical Pollutants

8500 - Contaminated Sediments

- Clean Sediments

- Other Historical Pollutants


Other NPS Pollution

8050 - Erosion from Derelict Land

8100 - Atmospheric Deposition

8400 - Spills

8600 - Natural Sources

8700 - Recreational and Tourism Activities (non-

boating)

8910 - Groundwater Loadings

Code Main Category Subcategory

- Wildlife

9000 Source Unknown

Top of page


Attachment F: Draft Revised "Pollutant Type" Picklist

Notes:

(A) Categories with codes are using current 305(b) codes.

(B) Categories without codes are new or changed, and therefore have not had codes assigned yet.

  • "All Pollutants" can be picked only if one uses the following Functional Category of Activity codes (see Attachment G) in the Primary Functional Category of Activity field : 100, 201, 202, 410, 600.

Code Pollutant

0000 Cause Unknown

All Pollutants

2210 Algal Growth/Chlorophyll

1500 Alteration (Flow)

1600 Alterations (Habitat -- other than flow)

0600 Ammonia

0700 Chlorine

0720 Cyanide

0420 Dioxins/Furans

1200 Dissolved Oxygen (Low)

Ethylene Glycol

2600 Exotic Species

0250 Herbicide (Atrazine)

Herbicide (Alachlor)

Herbicide (Other)

0800 Inorganics (Other)

0500 Metals (Other)

Metals (Aluminum)

0510 Metals (Arsenic)

0520 Metals (Cadmium)

0530 Metals (Copper)

0540 Metals (Chromium)

Metals (Iron)

0550 Metals (Lead)

0560 Metals (Mercury)

0570 Metals (Selenium)

0580 Metals (Zinc)

Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether

0930 Nitrate

0920 Nitrogen

Code Pollutant

1900 Oil and Grease

0300 Organics (Other Priority)

0400 Organics (Other Nonpriority)

1700 Pathogens (Other)

Pathogens (Coliform)

Pathogens (E Coli)

0410 PCBs

0200 Pesticides (Other)

Pesticides (DDT)

Pesticides (Chlordane)

Pesticides (Dieldrin)

Pesticides (Dianzinon)

1000 pH

0910 Phosphorus

2200 Plants (Noxious Aquatic)

Propylene Glycol

1800 Radiation

1300 Salinity/TDS/Chlorides

1100 Sedimentation/Siltation (habitat and/or morphological)

0750 Sulfates

2100 Suspended Solids

2000 Taste and Odor

1400 Temperature

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen

2400 Toxics (Total)

Trash, Debris, Floatables

Tributyltin

2500 Turbidity

Top of page


Attachment G: Functional Category of Activity

(A) Subcategories with codes that are shaded (redlined) are new or changed.

  • Main categories have no codes because they are headings only. Main categories cannot be entered with the existing GRTS picklist for Functional Category of Activity, either.
  • Only one entry may be made in the Primary Functional Category of Activity field.
  • There is no limit on the number of entries in the Secondary Functional Category of Activity field.
  • The Functional Category of Activity is not used by Section 305(b).

Code Main Category Subcategory

Restoration/Protection/Prevention

010 Corrective Action (other than BMP implementation)

011 BMP Design/Implementation

012 BMP Performance Assessment

013 Animal Manure/Litter Management Projects

014 Livestock Control Projects

016 Vegetation Management/Revegetation

017 Stream Bank Stabilization

018 Grade Stabilization

019 Sediment Control

020 Stormwater Discharge Design/Control

021 Erosion Control Projects

022 Acquisition of Wetland Resources

023 Wetland Restoration/Protection

024 Acquisition of Riparian Resources

025 Riparian Projects

026 Fisheries Projects

027 Other Restoration/Protection/Prevention


Education/Information Programs

100 Statewide Education/Information Programs

600 Local (Specific Target) Education/Information Programs

Technical Assistance

200 Technical Assistance to State/Local

201 Nonpoint Source Program Overall Coordination/Management

202 Nonpoint Source Project Staffing

230 Technology Transfer to State/Local Government

290 Other Technical Assistance Activity

Regulatory/Enforcement

300 Certification Activities

310 Program Development Activities

320 Inspection Activities

330 Ordinance Development

340 Enforcement Activities

Planning

401 Nutrient Management Planning

402 Watershed Modeling Planning

403 Stormwater Management Planning

404 Watershed Restoration Action Strategy (WRAS)/Watershed Planning

410 Geographic Information Systems

420 Develop/Revise Basin Plans

430 TMDLs

440 Nonstructural Planning (for new development)

450 Livestock Grazing System Planning

490 Other Planning

Water Quality Assessment/Monitoring

501 Instream Flow Assessments

502 Assessments for Compliance with Water Quality Standards

503 Wetland Assessment/Monitoring

504 Riparian Assessment/Monitoring

505 TMDL Assessments

510 Water Quality Trend Assessment

520 Water Quality Problem Identification

590 Other Water Quality Assessment /Monitoring

600 BMP Effectiveness Monitoring

610 Biological Monitoring

620 Watershed Assessments

319(h) National Monitoring Project

800 319(h) National Monitoring Project

Other Activities

910 Groundwater (all groundwater activities)

920 Antidegradation Activities and Analyses

930 Soil Analyses


Top of page


Jump to main content.