than one FTE dedicated to implementing §319. In Lowisiana, ine Siate allocated one FTE in
1987 to develop the State's SMP, and the NPS program has since axquired 2.5 more FTE
from State resources.

Conversely, Wisconsin and North Cazolina lhave ased ove 30% of their §319
resources to support staff. In Wisconsin, although the In:dget for its cost-sharing program
has grown dramatically, resources to support staff to implement the program have not.
§319 grant resources have supported more than 35 FTE over twa years, augmenting staff
responsible for implementing the program by roughly one-third as well as funding
Positions in other programs that are integral to the NPS program. North Carolina also
supported 30 FTE over two years to implement its program, almost all of which were
retained by the LNPSA. Uses for these FTE range from §319 program administration to
implementation of statewide programs to site- or watershed-specific projects.

Other EPA Resources

While §319 provides for grant resources to be made available to States to implement
their SMPs, the CWA also specifically authorizes use of §205(j)(5) funds to develop and
implement States’ programs. Most of the States mentioned having used these funds both
to develop their SMPs as well as to implement NPS control projects before §319 grant funds
became available. Additionally, a few States also indicated having used §106 resources to
develop their SMPs, and at least one of the ten States reviewed, Colorado, reported having
used significant §201(g)(1)(b) resources to implement NPS control projects.

Section 603(c) of the CWA authorizes States to use water pollution control revolving
fund resources to implement their SMPs. None of the ten States reviewed has made use of
the revolving fund to implement NPS control programs (though some States outside the
scope of this study have). In Wisconsin, for example, officials of the NPS control program
commented that the revolving fund is not being used because the State's cost-sharing
program, available to individuals as well as municipalities, is generally perceived as more
lucrative than a loan program. In another State, the State legislature had authorized use of
$50 million of its $1 billion revolving fund for NPS control, but none of the revolving
funds has yet been appropriated nor have regulations regarding their use in the State's NPS
control program been developed.

16


to the NPS program but has chosen not to implement the Agenda directly and has not
identified an alternative strategy for supporting the States. Some efforts have been made to
address certain themes by issuing various technical guidance and outreach materials, most
notably the exceptionally well-received "Nonpoint Source News Notes,” but program
support has generally been provided on an ad hoc basis without any specific
implementation strategy being defined.

Headquarters Presence

The §319 program has also suffered from a significant decline in Headquarters
attention. For over a year and a half, Headquarters has concentrated on preparing guidance
for §317 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA). While
this guidance should ultimately prove useful to the NPS program as a whole, this focus on
CZARA has been perceived by some Regional Offices as serious neglect of §319. In addition,
due to a shortage of travel funds, senior managers and staff have made limited visits
during the past two years to Regional Offices or States to show support for the program or to
conduct reviews of State and Regional per:ormance.

Headquarters also has conducted limuted oversight over the NPS program, resulting
in limited knowledge of $ ate activities am:. ng Headquarters staff and giving the perception
of disinterest in the prog m. Although }:eadquarters staff "liaisons" communucate from
time to time with the Reg: nal Offices, and annual national conferences of Headquarters
and Regional NPS staff are held, Headquarters does not routinely or regularly receive or,
review State grant work programs, State annual reports, or other State or Regional
materials from the Regional Offices as a means of keeping informed about program
progress. Additionally, Headquarters currently does not have adequate staff in the NPS
Control Branch to review those State grant work programs which are submitted by some
Regional Offices.

Finally, although the program is delegated to the Regional Offices, Headquarters has
played a very minor role in developing a focused national program. In particular,
Headquarters has had a limited impact in influencing the original shape of SMPs approved
by Regional Offices or the SMPs' ongoing implementation and refinement. Although
Headquarters provided comments to the Regional Offices on many States’ initial proposed
SMPs during the SMP approval process in 1988 and 1989, Headquarters did not <onduct
adequate follow-up to assure that satisfactory SMPs were finally approved. As a result,
although the problem of defining NPS pollution and the means to address it originate with
the CWA and with the nature of NPS pollution itself, limited Headquarters input also has
contributed to a lack of clear definition for, and inconsistent implementation of, the NPS
program.

37


IL FINDINGS ON EPA'S ROLE

A. REGIONAL PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION

Finding: Although most Regional Offices use several staff to address NPS pollution,
few staff are dedicated specifically to assisting States to implement their State
Management Programs or §319 grants.

Organizing to Control NPS Pollution

Distinguishing the §319 program from other NPS control efforts at the Regional
level is just as difficult as it is at the State level. In addition to implementing the §319
program, EPA is responsible for numerous other programs, such as wetlands, groundwater,
clean lakes, national estuaries, coastal zone management, and even RCRA and air toxics,
which have components that address certain aspects of NPS pollution. Each program,
independently, may assist a State in implementing actions that have an impact on NPS
pollution and may address goals of its SMP; or a NPS-related program may coordinate its
efforts with other programs to achieve a particular NPS-related goal.

However , the maiority of Regional Offices do have some type of NPS group which
specifically addresses NPS-related issues. The formality of organization and the extent of
interaction among participants of these groups vary widely. NPS groups are variously
identified as workgroups, teams, units, or sections, and most are located within the water
quality branches (or equivalent) of the Regional Offices’ water management divisions.

Groups are primarily composed of representatives of NPS-related water programs;
some may include representation from other media programs, such as RCRA. Some
groups meet regularly and have specific agenda for discussing NPS problems affecting
various programs, such as pesticide use; others meet only on an ad hoc basis to review §319
grant proposals from States. in a few Regional Offices, watershed protection seems to be the
major or unifying theme for the groups, to which the concept of NPS control appears as
either synonymous or subordinate. In relation to implementing §319, as opposed to other
NPS-related efforts, the Regional NPS groups’ major role seems to be to review grant
proposals to keep other program staff current with relevant activities, to assure technical
validity, and to maintain legal consistency with other program requirements.

Staffing
Several Regional Offices have identified up to eight or nine staff which work on
NPS-related issues. Many Regional Offices also use detailees from the Soil Conservation

Service to conduct NPS control activities. However, in many cases, these staff actually
divide their time between implementing NPS- and other non-NPS related duties. For

33


Involve Others

National program managers should not identity goals, rolky and needs by
themselves. The §319 program is still not clearly defined and many diverse issues and
interests must be addressed. The Office of Water should use this opportunity to initiate a
process to involve Regions, States, and others to identify, clarify, asd communicate EPA
objectives and State needs for the NPS program. This process shoutd refer to, and build
upon, issues already identified and alliances that have been formed since the NPS program
was initiated. EPA needs to continue to work closely with other agencies and organizations
to assure a high level of cooperation and strong participation to meet commonly
understood goals.


lead role in addressing NPS pollution problems and the Federal Government a limited
support role. This flexibility reflects the concerns of Congress to assure that "the Federal
Government does not intervene in State and local land-use planning decisions."5
However, the statute does require States to develop a schedule of annual milestones for
umplementing their SMPs and using BMPs and emphasizes that SMPs be implemented “to
the maximum extent practicable... on a watershed-by-watershed basis."6

Wide Range of NPS-related Programs

In keeping with the mandate of §319 to address all the sources of NPS pollution
identified in their State Assessment Reports, the majority of the States studied have
described their NPS programs as agglomerations of numerous programs which have water
quality-related responsibilities. All of the ten SMPs have, to varying levels of detail,
identified State, local, and Federal agencies, particularly within the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), which have specific programs and responsibilities for implementing
BMPs that may control NPS pollution. Programs which address agriculture, wetlands,
lakes, and estuaries, underground storage tanks, hazardous and solid waste disposal, among
others, are included in many SMPs because they address NPS surface runoff or NPS threats
to groundwater.

Many of the programs identified in the SMPs have their own missions (other than
NPS control), strategies of implementation, and sources of funding. For example, a few
SMPs include descriptions of abandoned coal mine reclamation programs because
reclamation of these sites also may have substantial water quality benefits; however, these
reclamation programs are primarily designed to protect public safety and have their own
State or Federal sources of funding. Many agriculturally-related programs, which, in the
past, have focused primarily on improving harvests through soil and water conservation
practices and other BMPs, are also incorporated in many SMPs because of their impacts on
water quality. Only one of the ten States, Wisconsin, has specifically excluded certain types
of pollutant sources (land disposal runoff or leachate problems and waste storage/storage
tank problems and spills) from its NPS program because these problems are already
regulated by other State programs.

States’ NPS programs also tend to mirror the diversity of NPS pollution problems
that States face. Different States have emphasized implementation of different programs
within their SMPs, reflecting their priorities for addressing various types of NPS problems.
For example, both Massachusetts’ and New Jersey's SMPs place emphasis on urban runoff
and protection of public water supplies, while putting less emphasis on the impacts of
agricultural and silvicultural sources. Alternatively, North Carolina and Louisiana identify
agriculture as their primary source of NPS pollution and have focused more attention on

5 Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, A Legislative History of the
Water Quality Act of 1987 , 1988, p. 322.

6 Water Quality Act of 1987 (CWA), §319(b)(2)(C) and §319(b)(4).
10


C. IMPLEMENTATION OF STATE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

Finding: State Management Programs generally cannot be used to gauge the States’
progress in implementing NPS controls.

Section 319 required States to include a four-year schedule in their SMPs which
contains annual milestones for implementing BMPs and programs to reduce pollutant
loadings of nonpoint sources. States were also required to submit annual reports to EPA to
describe their progress in meeting these milestones and, to the extent practicable, to identify
reductions in nonpoint source loadings and improvements in water quality. Although
evaluating the implementation of these milestones should help determine States’ progress
in implementing their NPS programs, the highly variable quality and quantity of the
milestones makes such evaluation infeasible for the majority of the ten States.

SMP Milestone Variability

EPA's 1987 NPS Guidance did not specify the types of milestones that States should
include in their SMPs, although it did provide some examples of appropriate milestones,
such as anticipated improvements in water quality, numbers and types of BMPs
implemented, and NPS programs or laws established or passed. Most of the ten States
interpreted the guidance loosely and did not identify meaningful milestones for which they
could be held accountable. Officials in at least two States commented that they were
unwilling to set milestones that they did not believe they could meet. Officials in one State
were especially concerned about raising public expectations beyond the State's capability to
meet them. States’ doubts about the future availability of §319 funding for State NPS
programs also reportedly colored the quality of the milestones some States were willing to
commit to implementing.

Variable quality and quantity of milestones impedes meaningful evaluation of
progress in implementation or improvement in water quality. The quality of milestones
varies in several ways. First, many milestones are actually commitments of previously
existing programs which have been incorporated into the SMPs because they have a role in
controlling NPS pollution. An example of this type of milestone is the commitment to
inspect underground storage tanks as part of the Underground Storage Tank program.
Inclusion of this type of milestone in a SMP exacerbates the difficulty of defining the scope
of a State §319 NPS program. States deserve recognition for all of their NPS control efforts,
but counting the milestones of other programs impedes the meaningful! evaluation of the
effectiveness of the §319 program mandated by the statute.

In other cases, milestones are ongoing, with no quantifiable measures to provide a
base by which to measure progress. For example, a milestone which commits to conducting
research in integrated pest management over a four year period does not allow for any
measure of relative success. Likewise, milestones to conduct water quality management
workshops, write water quality monitoring reports, determine TMDLs, or even conduct

20


IV. RECOMMENDATIONS TO EPA

A. EMPHASIZE WATERSHED PROTECTION

Recommendation:

The Office of Water should more clearly and strongly emphasize that a watershed
protection approach be the basis of State NPS programs.

In keeping with statutory intent for States to implement their SMPs on a watershed-
by-watershed basis to the maximum extent practicable, and to be consistent with OW's
policy, expressed through it's §319 SMP and grant guidance as well as its watershed
protection initiative, OW and Regional Offices should work to have States focus on
watershed protection approaches to improve the quality of the waters identified in their
Assessment Reports.

Seek SMP Revisions

Rather than enco:raging States to define their NPS programs through existing
pollutant category-specific programs, OW should require States to revise or enhance their
SMPs to reflect a watershed protection approach to the maximum extent possible.
Institutionalizing State NPS programs is also an important goal to achieve long-term water
quality improvements; program infrastructure should be built up within the context of
addressing the NPS problems of watersheds which can maximize demonstrable progress in
Protecting waterbodies. Successful institutionalization of State NPS programs may be
measured by the effective use of LNPSA staff to implement and coordinate programs
directed toward watersheds and the extension and adaptation of these programs into other
watersheds.

Because the statute is silent on the matter of revisions to the SMPs, OW should also
encourage Congress to require all States to revise and update their SMPs, increasing the
emphasis on using a watershed protection approach as the basis for State NPS programs.
The Office of Water should also encourage Congress to provide resources to States to make
these revisions in order to encourage a higher quality effort without jeopardizing
implementation of NPS control activities.

Revise SMP Guidance
The Office of Water, in collaboration with Federal, State, and local agencies and

interested and affected publics, should develop SMP guidance which more clearly directs
States to use a watershed-oriented approach. The guidance should better defin:: EPA's

38


1 INTRODUCTION

Section 319 of the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987 (CWA) required States to
assess the impacts of nonpoint source (NPS) pollution on their navigable waters and
develop four-year State Management Programs (SMPs) to implement best management
practices (BMPs) to control these sources of pollution. EPA is responsible for approving
these SMPs and for providing grants to States to assist them in implementing their NPS
programs. By January 1990, most SMPs had been fully approved by EPA, and in August
1990, the first §319 resources were awarded to the States.

The Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds (OWOW) requested the Program
Evaluation Division (PED) to conduct a mid-course assessment of the implementation of
the §319 program. Goals of this study included evaluating the extent to which States have
implemented §319, assessing EPA's role in assisting States, and providing information to
national program managers to help set future directions for the program. To conduct its
study, PED visited the ten EPA Regions and reviewed the §319 programs of ten States,
including Massachusetts, New Jersey (paper review only), Pennsylvania, North Carolina,
Wisconsin, Louisiana, Kansas, Colorado, Nevada, and Oregon.

I, HNDINGS ON STATE IMPLEMENTATION OF PROGRAMS

A. DEFINING THE NPS PROGRAM

A basic finding of this study is that because of the diverse nature of NPS pollution,
there is no single definition of a NPS program. Rather than defining a single program to
address NPS pollution, the majority of SMPs are agglomerations of programs which have
responsibilities that may affect water quality. NPS programs tend to emphasize different
types of programs based on the States’ definition of NPS pollution and the types of NPS
problems the States face.

Although lead NPS agencies (LNPSAs) are designated to implement §319, authority
for implementing SMPs is generally decentralized. Most LNPSAs that are responsible for
implementing SMPs and administering grants are actually sub-divisions of larger agencies
and do not have authority to implement many programs or milestones identified in the
SMPs. Many LNPSAs see their role primarily as a focal point for facilitating and
coordinating the efforts of ongoing programs.

In addition to most State NPS programs being decentralized, the extent to which
States are institutionalizing their NPS programs varies widely. Although the majority of
the ten States do not have separate organizational units dedicated to implementing the
State's NPS program, most States have used substantial §319 resources to support staff to
implement their overall NPS program or specific projects. Several States have also used


assure cooperation in addressing NPS pollution problems. For e-.ample, Oregon's SMP
describes a process which relies primarily on the use of memorande of agreement between
the LNPSA and designated management agencies (DMAs) to establish action plans. The
action plans identify specific NPS programs or activities the DMAs will be responsible for
implementing. Also, in Wisconsin, the LNPSA recently signed a six-party memorandum
of understanding with State and Federal agencies which have specific responsibilities for
implementing NPS-related programs. The memorandum established two interagency
committees to coordinate the use of resources and technical assistance for implementing
the State's NPS program.

§319 Advisory Committees

Six of the ten States have advisory committees to assist in decision-making
Tegarding the use of §319 grant resources. Most of these committees have fewer than 30
members and contain a mix of State and Federal representatives. However, the
membership size and composition of these committees varies across the States, possibly
extending only to other divisions within States’ environmental protection agencies, or
extending to State or Federal r.~tural resource management agencies. Committees may also
include local public and private interests. For example, in Pennsylvania, the committee's
membership is basically restricted to fourteen representatives from different bureaus within
the State's Department of Environmental Resources. In Nevada, however, there are 250
participants on the advisory committee representing numerous Federal, State, and local
agencies, organizations und private sroups. Massachusetts, New jersey, Louisiana, and
Colorado are the other States which also have specifically established formal groups to help
allocate §319 grant funds.

The impact of the advisory committees also varies from State to State, their level of
involvement mostly being determined by the amount of control the LNPSA chooses to
exercise. In Pennsylvania, for example, the LNPSA has no discernibly greater influence
than other members of the advisory committee and resource use decisions are made by
consensus. In Massachusetts, the LNPSA takes recommendations from the advisory group
on potential §319-funded projects but exercises greater authority in selecting which provects
to submit to EPA for approval. In Louisiana and Colorado, the LNPSAs and their advisory
groups seem to work more closely to develop mutually satisfactory proposals for §319
funded projects.

Encouraging Local Participation

Although the five other States do not have formal advisory committees to
determine the use of §319 resources, most have mechanisms to encourage local
participation in the implementation of their NPS programs. In three of these States, North
Carolina, Wisconsin, and Kansas, the NPS programs offer considerable cost-sharing
incentives to encourage local participation, using conservation districts or departments as a
major vehicle for interaction with the public. At least two of these States, Wisconsin and
Kansas, require substantial local commitment, often through watershed management

31


B. SETTING WATERSHED-SPECIFIC PRIORITIES

Finding: The majority of the ten States do not have NPS programs oriented toward
improving water quality on a watershed-specific basis.

Relation to Water Quality Goals

As noted earlier, §319 emphasizes that SMPs be implemented on a watershed-by-
watershed basis to the maximum extent practicable. All the SMPs identify programs to
conduct, encourage, and support BMP implementation, and most identify a limited
number of watersheds in which they intend to conduct NPS control activities. However,
the majority of SMPs do not identify strategic plans or milestones for achieving water
quality goals for specific waters identified in their Assessment Reports. In general,
programs described in the SMPs are not tied to specific waterbodies, and their impact on
water quality remains largely unknown. Rather, many of the programs in the SMPs are
pollutant category-specific, tending to be statewide in their scope. Few States identified
strategies for merging their NPS-related programs to comprehensively address watershed-
specific NPS pollution problems.

Waterbody Ranking

Although §319 does not require it, EPA's 1987 NPS Guidance'2 as well as its 1991
grant guidance strongly encourages States to rank the waterbodies identified in their
assessments to determine priorities for the use of their limited resources. EPA's 1991
guidance on §319 grant awards also encourages Regional Offices to "give funding priority to
watershed projects in high priority watersheds identified through State priority ranking
systems"13 when allocating the competitive portion of the grant awards among the States.
EP additionally offered technical guidance to States on priority-setting approaches used by
selected States.14

The majority of States do not appear to have well-developed mechanisms for

R EPA, Office of Water, “Nonpoint Source Guidance,” December 1987, p. 11-12.

13 EPA, Office of Water, Memorandum on “Final Guidance on the Award and
Management of Nonpoint Source Program Implementation Grants under Section
319(h) of the Clean Water Act,” from LaJuana S. Wilcher, Assistant Administrator,
to Water Management Division Directors, February 15, 1991, p. 2.

4 EPA, Office of Water, “Setting Priorit:es: The Key to Nonpoint Source Control,” July
1987.

17


funds on a project by project basis; thus this report did not determine the use of the State
matching resources.

While some projects, as described in the annual grant work programs, have a single
objective, such as production of a BMP manual, many others have multiple objectives,
such as BMP implementation, water quality monitoring, and education, all combined
within the context of a BMP demonstration project. Projects may be expensive,
open-ended, and have very general descriptions. Alternatively, projects may be relatively
specific, inexpensive, and of fixed duration—for example, the design of a BMP within a year
to address a very specific NPS problem. Several projects which are supported by §319 funds
are also components of larger State or Federal efforts, such as NPS monutoring in USDA
water quality initiative projects. Projects may also cover miscellaneous expenditures, such
as the purchase of equipment, attendance at conferences, or updates of SMPs.

Characterization of Grant Projects

_ To characterize States’ use of their §319 grant resources, each project identified in the
grant work programs was classified by the project team into one of following nine broad
categories:

- BMP Implementation (including demonstration projects)

- Education and Outreach

- Regulation (regulation and policy development and implementation)

- Water Quality Assessment (generally to classify waters for future action or to
identify problems)

- Evaluation Monitoring (to evaluate the impact of BMP implementation on
water quality)

- Technical Assistance (direct or indirect assistance or technology transfer to
facilitate BMP implementation)

- Management (program staff to administer the overall program or multiple or
unspecified project activities)

- BMP Development (research to identify appropriate BMPs for specific NPS
problems)

- Miscellaneous (other, equipment purchases, unknown)

Projects were classified into categories based on what appeared to be their main
intended purpose, regardless of whether they addressed surface or groundwater problems.
However, many projects, in fact, include components of more than one category. Because
descriptions of projects within States’ work programs are highly varied in level of detail,
where data gaps occurred, the project team surmised the most rvasonable categorization.
Other data, including FTE supported by §319 grants and the distribution of §319 resources to
implementing agencies, were assessed where possible.

Although the PED project team initially tried to correlate grant projects with SMP
milestones, grant projects generally were too specific and SMP milestones too broad for
valuable comparisons to be made. Generally, however, most grant projects appeared to

23


In 1990, Kansas began a program which provides technical and financial assistance to
localities which develop NPS management programs. Priorities for choosing among
watershed projects to support include whether the waters are identified as high quality or
highly vulnerable. The State has also identified basin-wide environmental protection
strategies which highlight particular NPS pret-lems based - hydrologic un:: »reas. Recent
legislation to protect multi-purpose small lakes will also ¢ 1de the determi . :10n of
implementation priorities of local managemen: plans. To date, only a few projects have
been initiated and several more are in planni’ - stages.

Oregon has developed several mechanisms to rank its waterbodies in order to target
how resources for implementing NPS controls are used. Waterbodies are broadly classified
in the State's NPS Assessment of 1988, are ranked according to criteria in the State Clean
Water Strategy, and are identified as to whether they meet EPA's §303(d) classifications.
Each of these crite ria are used to support decisions to conduct watershed-specific projects as
part of the State's NPS program supported by §319 resources. However, most of these
projects do not appear to address comprehensively all nonpoint sources in the watersheds.
The Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board also provides resources to communities
which conduct wat: hed improvement projects that may also include NPS control.
Several of these pri .ts are supplemented with §319 resources and are also subject to the

same classification process.

19


associations or local governments, before watershed projects can be initiated. Wisconsin's
NPS program also has cultivated strong working relationshups with other State
organizations, such as the Wisconsin Conservation Corps, and private organizations, such
as Trout Unlimited, to win sustained support for implementation of the program's
watershed projects. A fourth State, Oregon, also strongly encourages local participation in
conducting NPS-related activities by providing small grants to cummunities or private
organizations through its Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board; several of these
grants are also supported by §319 resources.

Some Tension Among Agencies

For the most part, State and Federal agencies expressed little dissatisfaction with the
extent of cooperation that has occurred in implementing the States’ NPS programs.
However, as might be expected, some tension over the control of §319 or other resources
and overlapping responsibilities among agencies were reported. Examples of this tension
include: disagreements between a State's LNPSA and its advisory group regarding the most
appropriate use of §319 resources; the Soil Conservation Service's disappointment with its
lack of involvement in a State's NPS program; disagreements between the State and the
Bureau of Land Management on how best to address NPS problems on Federal lands; and
conflicts between the LNPSA and the agencies responsible for administering a State's NPS
cost-sharing program.


NPS Program Organizational Units

EPA grant guidance encourages States to group nonpoint source positions as a unit
"to reinforce the increasing priority given to abatement of nonpeim source pollution and...
[to] affirm the unique skills necessary for [implementing NPS program] functions..."!!. The
majority of the ten States studied do not have separate organizational units dedicated to
implementing the State's NPS program. Although staff within LNPSAs may be designated
to implement the NPS program, these positions may or may not be fully dedicated to this
purpose. In a few States, the small size of the NPS program and the limited activities of the
LNPSA itself may not warrant the establishment of a separate unit. However, establishing
a NPS program organizational unit, as Louisiana has recently done with 3.5 staff, is one
means of affirming interest in NPS pollution control.

Two other study States, Wisconsin and Kansas, also have designated separate
organizational units to implement their NPS control programs. In addition to having staff
in other programs dedicated to NPS control, Wisconsin's Nonpoint Source and Land
Management Section contains over 18 staff, with specialists responsible for watershed
project planning, policy and ordinance development, outreach, modeling, water quality
evaluation and appraisal, standards development, and engineering--among others--and has
been operating since 1979. In Kansas, the NPS program is more complicated, because,
although a separate organizational unit exists, its role in implementing the NPS program is
more limited. While NPS program staff in Kansas’ LNPSA are involved in the
development, approval, evaluation, and technical review of local NPS management plans,
another agency, the State Conservation Commission, supports development and
implementation of plans through financial and technical assistance. NPS program staff are
also responsible for administering the local environmental protection plan program which
provides State grants to communities to develop and implement plans to enact local
sanitary codes.

State Resources

Five of the ten States reviewed identified substantial State resources (over $1
million) specifically dedicated to NPS control programs in addition to §319 grant matching,
funds that must be contributed by non-Federal sources. These States committed between $1
million and $18 million for their NPS programs in 1991-1992, primarily as part of cost-
sharing programs with individuals or municipalities to facilitate implementation of BMPs
Although other States are making similar investments to implement their NPS programs,
these additional investments are not substantial or could not be clearly identified.

nu EPA, Office of Water, "Guidance on the Award and Management of Nonpoint
Source Program Implementation Grants Under Section 319(h) of the Clean Water
Act,” January 14, 1991, p. 14.

14


L INTRODUCTION

A. BACKGROUND

Nonpoint source (NPS) pollution is widely acknowledged as being a highly
significant source of pollution currently threatening our Nation’s-surface waters.
Nonpoint sources are varied, widespread, and ubiquitous. They cannot be regulated in the
same manner in which point sources are controlled. Section 319 of the Clean Water Act
Amendments of 1987 (CWA) required the States to assess the impacts of NPS pollution on
the quality of their navigable waters, identify the sources of NPS pollution to these waters,
and develop State Management Programs (SMPs) to control these sources. Section 319 also
authorized EPA to award grants to assist States in implementing their NPS programs.

During the last five years, all States which did not already have formal NPS
programs developed them to meet the requirements of §319 and to qualify for State
program implementation grants. Virtually all State Assessment Reports and SMPs have
been completed and approved by EPA, lead NPS agencies have been designated to
administer the programs, and, beginning in FY 1990, §319 grants have been awarded. The
structure and implementation of these programs are often very different, due to differing
NPS pollution problems, different levels of State capability and orientation, and previous
NPS control efforts of the States. However, across the States, certain common themes as
well as significant differences can be- discerned in their overall approach toward
implementing §319.

B. PURPOSE OF STUDY

In response to a request from the Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
(OWOW), EPA's Program Evaluation Division (PED) conducted a review of States’
implementation of §319 of the CWA.

The goals of this study were to:

° Evaluate the extent to which §319 has been implemented by the States;

° Assess EPA's role in assisting States to implement §319; and

. Provide information to the Office of Wetlands, Oceans and

Watersheds which program managers may use to set future directions
for the §319 program.


monitoring in hydrologic unit area projects being conducted by the USDA. Monitoring in
these projects has been conducted either to measure the effectiveness of specific BMPs in
reducing pollutant loadings or to evaluate general watershed water quality improvements.
The four other States are using §319 resources to support water quality monitoring staff to
evaluate watershed projects funded by §319 or other resources. For example, §319 resources
are being used in North Carolina to continue monitonng the implementation of BMPs in
targeted watersheds within USDA Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program
(PL 83-566) and US Geological Survey demonstration projects. In Oregon, §319 funds are
supporting a project to develop rapid bio-assessment protocols to assess the quality of the
State's waters as well as evaluating water quality improvements in several BMP
implementation projects which are also being supported by the grant. Similarly, in
Colorado, staff have been hired using FY 1991 §319 funds to conduct NPS monitoring as
well as to evaluate the effectiveness of BMP implementation projects.

One State's Monitoring Effort

Wisconsin is the only one of the ten States reviewed which seems to have a
well-established program for monitoring water quality changes as part of its overall
program to implement NPS control projects on a watershed-specific basis. Wisconsin's
NPS program is required to evaluate changes in water quality in all of the priority
watershed projects which it administers. Water quality monitoring plans are developed for
each project and include collection of ambient and biological assessment data. Partly due to
the costliness of monitoring, the State is currently investigating the minimum amount of
monitoring needed to observe changes which can be used to develop standardized
monitoring techniques to be applied in all watersheds. Few evaluations are complete
because Wisconsin's watershed projects last between eight and ten years.

Generally Wisconsin's evaluations of early watershed projects (those commenced in
the early 1980s) indicate that "water quality improvements can be documented at
individual sites on small streams..., but no change in water quality in large streams or
streams with multiple sources that were not all managed could be detected."17 The State
has reported that the most important factors for the lack of detectable improvement is that
“only a small percentage of practices estimated to be needed to improve water quality were
installed, and the practices were scattered throughout the watersheds - often on lands not
causing the greatest problems."18 These problems are being addressed in current projects
where critical NPS pollution sources have been identified and targeted for the
implementation of BMPs. Wisconsin's program also conducts small scale watershed
projects where implementation of BMPs are more concentrated and water quality
improvements may be more easily detected.

7 Wisconsin Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement Program, “Section 319 Annual
Report to EPA," September 1, 1991, p. 24.

18 Ibid, p. 24.
29


PROJECT CATEGORIES IN WHICH STATES HAVE USED
OVER 20% OF THEIR 1990-1991 GRANT RESOURCES

100%

80%
60%

40%

RESOURCES

20%

Oo% + =
A B c D E F G H 1 J

STATES* states are in random order

@ ave CO MANAGEMENT Gl REGULATION Ml ASSESSMENT
IMPLEMENTATION
G pvp EDUCATION A TECHNICAL
DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE
CHART 2

Program Balance

The grant guidance emphasizes that States should use §319 resources to balance their
overall NPS programs between watershed projects to improve water quality and Statewide
projects to institutionalize their programs. However, because no single definition of a State
NPS program exists, determining how effective §319 resources have been at helping the
State establish this overall balance is not possible. In addition, determining the balance of
projects within a State's grant work program may also be highly misleading. For example,
among the States reviewed, Wisconsin has used the least amount of §319 resources to
conduct BMP implementation projects; however, it spends more State resources annually
than any of the ten States to support its cost-sharing program to implement BMPs in its
priority watersheds. This use of resources, though not balanced within the context of the
§319 grant, is highly appropriate for Wisconsin's overall NPS program.

Finally, no clear definitions exist for watershed or Statewide activities that can
consistently be applied to States' use of §319 resources. Fewer than 20% of all §319-funded
Projects in the ten States seem to meet all the minimum requirements identified in the
guidance for watershed projects--fewer than 25% of all §319 projects actually implement
BMPs. However, as noted earlier, in many instances, §319 resources may contribute to
larger-scale projects which may more clearly be identified as watershed projects. Nearly
45% of the States’ projects are site-specific, i.e., projects that conduct monitoring, education,

26


technical assistance). Determining whether §319 resources have been effectively used to
balance States’ NPS programs is not possible, and determining whether the use of grant
resources themselves is balanced is generally not valuable.

E. MEASURING WATER QUALITY IMPACTS

The majority of States are making some effort to monitor the effectiveness of BMP
implementation, though water quality impacts due to implementation of §319 are as yet
unknown. Projects which implement BMPs generally include use of a mix of water quality
monitoring or modelling tools. Seven States are also using §319 resources specifically to
conduct water quality monitoring of other projects. Only one of the ten States has an
evaluation monitoring program to measure water quality changes in all of its watershed
Projects.

F. INTERAGENCY COORDINATION

§319 has facilitated increased communication and coordination among agencies and
organizations to develop and implement the State Management Programs. Many States
emphasize the importance of cooperation in their SMPs, and five have advisory
committees to assist in decision-making for using §319 grants. Local participation is also
encouraged, especially through cost-sharing or grants, in several NPS programs. Some
tension exist among agencies in determining their appropriate roles, which is not
surprising given the number of agencies involved.

IL. FINDINGS ON EPA'S ROLE

A. REGIONAL PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION

Although most Regional Offices use several staff to address NPS pollution, few staff
are dedicated specifically to assisting States implement their State Management Programs or
§319 grants. The majority of Regional Offices have some type of formal or informal NPS
group which addresses common concerns of NPS-related programs. These groups also
often help make decisions in the use of §319 resources. In most Regional Offices,
implementation of §319 is divided among several staff who also have other non-§319
related responsibilities.

Regional Office implementation of the §319 grant program varies considerably across
the Regions. Most Regional Offices provide their own guidance to States which, though
consistent with national guidance, varies in specificity. Regional Offices use different
criteria, weighting factors, and priorities for evaluating grant proposals. Oversight of State
implementation also differs from Region to Region. Although all Regional Offices assure
that approved grants are consistent with SMP objectives, the majority does not appear to


§205(j)(5) and §201(g)(1)(b) resources to implemen? their NPS programs in addition to §319
funds, but none of the ten States has used §603(c) (i... State Revolving Fund) resources for
NPS control. Additionally, five of the ten States have dedicated sabstantial resources of
their own, beyond §319 grant matching funds, to amplement specific NPS programs.

B. SETTING WATERSHED-SPECIFIC PRIORITIES

Section 319 directs States to implement their programs on a watershed-specific basis
to the “maximum extent practicable,” but the majority of the ten States do not have NPS
programs oriented toward improving water quality on a watershed-specific basis. Programs
identified in SMPs are often pollutant category specific and do not expressly address
meeting water quality goals. The majority of States also do not yet appear to have well-
developed mechanisms for ranking waters to determine NPS control implementation
priorities. Four of the ten States, however, are focusing on implementing watershed-
specific approaches to controlling NPS pollution.

C. IMPLEMENTATION OF STATE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

Although they contain a four-year schedule of implementation, State Management
Programs generally cannot be used to gauge the States’ progress in implementing NPS
controls. Variable quality and quantity of milestones impede meaningful evaluation of
progress in SMP implementation or in improving water quality. A few States also actively
amend their SMPs on an annual or biennial basis to meet their changing needs. State
annual reports on progress in meeting SMP milestones do not appear to be valuable for
evaluating State performance, though they generally contain information regarding §319
grant implementation.

D. STATES' USE OF §319 GRANTS

Flexible guidance has enabled States to use §319 resources to address numerous NPS
priorities. Although EPA grant guidance emphasizes that States develop balanced NPS
programs, the guidance contains numerous priorities for States to address, which allows
them wide latitude to choose what most meets their interests given the limited §319
resources available. States have taken this opportunity to use §319 resources to implement
a wide variety of NPS activities. In the aggregate, the ten States have used over 20% of their
§319 resources to conduct projects specifically to implement BMPs.

States concentrate their use of §319 resources to focus on different priority activities.
Although, in the aggregate, the ten States have spread their use of §319 resources among
several categories of activities, many States have emphasized different priorities by focusing
their use of resources on implementing projects within one or two categories. Four States
have used 50% or more of their §319 resources to implement a specific type of activity (e.g.,
BMP implementation, management, education, regulation development and
implementation, BMP development, water quality assessment, evaluation monitoring, and


i 2 oldest of the State programs with substantial resources dedicated to NPS
pollution control is Wisconsin's Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Abatement Program,
which was established in 1979 and has grown from an annual allocation of nearly $1
million to $18 million in 1991-1992. This program provides cost-sharing assistance to
implement BMPs to address comprehensively all pollutant sources in priority watershed
projects--though most of the resources have been used to provide financial assistance to
address agricultural nonpoint sources.

Pennsylvania and North Carolina both also support extensive cost-sharing programs
ranging from $3.5 million to $8 million. These programs began in the mid-1980s and are
exclusively oriented to facilitating implementation of agricultural BMPs. In both of these
States, the cost-sharing programs are directed not by the LNPSA designated to implement
§319, but by other agencies or divisions.

Kansas' and New Jersey's programs are different in that they do not focus on
agricultural nonpoint sources. New Jersey's LNPSA received $10 million out of over $30
million in State funds in 1989 to implement NPS components of a program to improve
coastal municipal stormwater and sanitary sewers. Kansas committed over $3 million to
begin two programs in 1990, one providing financial assistance to communities to
implement local environmental protection plans, the second providing financial assistance
to implement local watershed management plans, which include control of agricultural
and nonagricultural sources. Kansas' LNPSA has primary responsibility to implement the
first program but plays a minor role in directing how resources are used in the second
program.

Use of §319 Funds for Staff

Section 319 resources have had a significant impact in supporting the staff of most
States’ NPS programs. In five of the ten States, §319 (or §205) resources support most of the
staff which are dedicated specifically to implement the NPS programs. Over 55% of the
combined 1990-1991 §319 grant work program funds are used to support over 120 FTE in the
ten States. Staff variously conduct general program management, regulation development
and implementation, technical transfer and assistance projects, outreach programs,
monitoring, and other activities. The majority of the ten States support between three and
ten FTE with their 1990-1991 §319 resources, though in several States, some of these FTE are
also allocated to agencies outside the LNPSA to support other programs or projects. In
some States, annual §319 resources support staff positions for more than one fiscal year; in
other States the staff positions are refunded on an annual basis. For example, in Nevada,
1991 §319 resources support one FTE staff person for a three year period; in Wisconsin,
however, virtually all FTE supported by 1990 §319 funds have again been supported by 1991
grant resources.

Several States have unique staffing situations. Two States, Pennsylvania and
Louisiana, have had restrictions or prohibitions against using Federal resources to support
State staff and have used no or virtually no §319 resources to pay for staff to implement
their NPS programs. In Pennsylvania, restrictions have meant that the LNPSA has less

15


C. SHOW SUPPORT FOR PROGRAM

The Office of Water should more visibly support the NPS program and send a
message to the States and Regional Offices that the NPS program is among the Agency's top
priorities. To foster interest in controlling NPS pollution, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and
Watersheds management should continue to publicly demonstrate its support for the NPS
program and encourage top management to do the same. The Office of Water should
consider increasing the emphasis given to NPS-related programs in annual operating
guidance and should provide resources to build Regional core §319 staff dedicated to
supporting and monitoring States' NPS programs. Additionally, OW should encourage
EPA to request appropriations from Congress for the §319 program that are at least equal to
what it received in previous years.

D. IMPROVE PROGRAM OVERSIGHT

To assure program effectiveness and success, EPA should continue to improve its
oversight capability and encourage States to develop quantifiable measures of success. The
Office of Water, in concert with Regionai ‘ffices and States, should develop measures of
progress for evaluating the national program. The Assessment and Watershed Protection
Divisior (AWPD), Regional Offices, and States should jointly develop a standardized
evaluation format which can be used to evaluate State progress as well as determine
parameters for information necessary to be included in grant work program proposals
Finally, AWPD's support for Headquarters liaisons to the Regional Offices should be
strengthened.


BMP implementation projects may be quantifiable but cannot be evaluated if targets are not
specified.

SMPs also vary greatly in the number of milestones they identify for measuring
progress, thus making consistent evaluation difficult. The number of milestones in the ten
SMPs studied ranged from fewer than ten during a four-year period to nearly 150 annually.
Five of the ten States committed to meeting fewer than 30 milestones during the entire
four-year lifetime of their SMFs. Not only is judging these States’ performance based on
their implementation of the SMPs not possible, especially given their variable quality, but
also the performance of these States cannot be weighed against the performance of other
States which set more ambitious targets for themselves.

Amendments to State Management Programs

Most States noted in interviews or in their SMPs that the NPS program is very
dynamic and 1s continually evolving and growing. Several States and Regional Offices
commented on the need to revise their SMPs periodically to reflect new directions that
States are taking in light of their experience and increased knowledge. Although §319
makes no provision for amending or updating SMPs, a few States have built this process
into their NPS programs. For example, North Carolina, which has numerous milestones
listed in the four-year action plans within its SMP, makes revisions to these plans on an
annual basis in its annual report. Nevada, which has very few milestones in its SMP, also
considered its 1991 §319 grant work program to be a revision to its SMP milestones and +
schedules, reflecting new activities to be funded. In another variation, Louisiana program
staff expect to revisit their SMP every two years to reassess the needs of the NPS program
and amend the SMP to plan for the use of anticipated §319 resources. As the State receives
approval for additional portions of its SMP, which address additional pollutant categories, it
can then be eligible to receive §319 resources to implement projects that address these
categories.

Use of Annual Reports

Because many SMPs contain vague or few milestones, most corresponding annual
reports do not contain detailed information on milestones which provide a useful measure
of SMP implementation and generally are not a good indicator of States’ progress in
implementing their NPS programs. However, annual reports have generally highlighted
various NPS programs described in the SMPs, and most provide specific information
regarding States’ progress in implementing projects supported by §319 grants. As of
December 1991, two of the ten States had not yet submitted annual reports for FY 1990.

Annual reports generally do not appear to be the means by which Regional Offices
learn of States’ implementation of their NPS programs. Rather, the personal
communication networks built up between State and Regional Office staff seem to be most
helpful to the Regional Offices in making their assessments about the quality of States’
performance in implementing their NPS programs.

21


a R UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENOY
WZ H WASHINGTON, D.c. 20460
ae mas
OFFICE OF

POLICY, PLANNING AND EVALUATION

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: PED's Final Report on Implementation of §319 Nonpoint
Source Programs

FROM: Pam Stirling, Director
Program Evaluation Division

TO: Geoff Grubbs, Director
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, OWOW

PED has prepared its final report on "Implementation of §319
Nonpoint Source Programs." (Two copies are attached.) We
delayed completion of the report in order to allow ASIWPCA to
respond to the report, but, as yet, we have not gotten any
responses. We have carefully considered all the comments we
received, and we have made revisions which we believe are
appropriate. If you wish, we can provide you with a list of all
the changes made since the draft report was first sent to the
Regional Offices on July 24.

Unless you have objections, within a week we plan to send
the final report to the Regional Office Division Directors,
Branch Chiefs, and NPS Coordinators, as well as to ASIWPCA, the
NPS contacts in the States we visited, and to others (within and
outside EPA) who have requested copies. Finally, my staff will
be returning State-specific documents (e.g., SMPs, grant
proposals, etc.) to your office which we received from you when
we began the study.

Thanks for giving us the opportunity to work with you and
your staff in preparing this report, which we hope will prove
useful as new directions for the §319 program are established.
Please don't hesitate to call me if you have any questions or
interest in other follow-up activities.

Attachments
cc: Tom Kelly, ORME

Dov Weitman, NPSCB
Stu Tuller, NPSCB


State Management Programs. With additional FTE, Regionat Offices should be able to
develop and a maintain core staff dedicated solely to the §319 program, which is a task that
goes well beyond mere administration of §319 grants. Headquarters should also strongly
encourage Regional Offices to continue the practice of drawing upon other regional
expertise in a systematic manner to assist in implementation of States’ NPS programs.

Request Resources From Congress

A perceived indicator of EPA's commitment to NPS contrat is the amount EPA
requests from Congress to implement §319. As a demonstration af its continuing and
increasing commitment to control NPS pollution, EPA should, at a minimum, request
appropriations (including travel funds) at least equal to what the Agency received from
Congress in the previous year. To request any fewer resources, especially during the wutial
phases of the program, has the opposite effect of identifying NPS control as a national
priority. It sends a very negative message to the States, which are being encouraged to
continue to dedicate resources to develop and implement their programs, while the Federal
program dedicates less.


The PED project team which conducted the study and wrote this report included
Kristina Heinemann, Bevin Horn, Cord Jones, Andy Spielman, and Alan Youkeles, Project
Manager. Len Fleckenstein was the Project Advisor.

PED would like to thank the NPS Control Branch management and staff and
Regional Office management and staff for their assistance in providing information and
feedback as we prepared this report. We additionally would like to thank the
representatives of the Federal, State, and local agencies as well as non-governmental
organizations who also shared valuable time and effort which were necessary to complete

this study.


Cc. METHODS

To meet the goals of this study, PED worked closely with the NPS Control Branch of
the Assessment and Watershed Protection Division (AWPD) to select a sample of ten States
to review. These States were:

Massachusetts
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
North Carolina
Wisconsin
Louisiana
Kansas
Colorado
Nevada
Oregon

eooceeweeosee

This sample illustrates a variety of NPS programs being implemented by
geographically diverse States in all ten EPA Regions. The sample does not represent all fifty
States’ programs, but the information derived from these ten States can help reveal how
§319 has affected the development and implementation of many States’ NPS programs.

During the course of the study, the PED project team visited nine of the ten States
listed above (New Jersey was reviewed through documents only) and ten Regional Offices,
conducting over 100 interviews with State, Regional, and Federal officials as well as private
organizations interested in NPS pollution control. Data collection took place during
Regional and State visits conducted between October 1991 and February 1992. The project
team also met frequently with staff from the NPS Control Branch of AWPD.

The project team reviewed numerous documents describing individual State
programs, such as SMPs, State Assessment Reports, FY 1990 and FY 1991 grant work
programs, quarterly and annual §319 reports as well as other State-specific materials. EPA
National and Regional guidance, publications, and other supporting documents were also
reviewed. PED also conducted an analysis of the FY 1990 and 1991 grant work programs to
characterize the use of §319 resources.

Given limitations in the scope and methodology of this study, a complete picture of
States’ NPS programs has not been drawn Many topics have not been addressed in this
report, and several issues may be the subject of controversy. However, we believe that the
information contained herein will provide fresh insights about the NPS program to experts
and newcomers alike and will stimulate fruitful discussions regarding future policies.
Many findings and recommendations proposed by the participants in this study remain to
be studied, and we hope and expect that thus report is only a starting point for the
reinvigoration of the NPS program and for preparation for reauthorization of the Clean
Water Act.


B. DEFINE PROGRAM GOALS AND ROLES

Recommendation:

The Office of Water and Regional Offices should clearly define EPA's goals, strategy
and role for the national NPS program.

Provide Direction

The Office of Water should exercise its leadership by clearly identifying long-term
goals and objectives for the §319 program. The Office of Water should develop a strategic
plan to outline what it expects the §319 program to accomplish and what States and EPA
need to do in order to meet those expectations. Additionally, a strategic plan would assist in
keeping program management and staff focused on meeting NPS program objectives,
minimizing opportumties for other programs’ priorities to absorb limited resources. EPA
can also clarify its vision for the NPS program through revisions to SMP guidance and
grant guidance. However, strategic plans and guidance revisions must be accompanied by
strong involvement of Headquarters and Regional Offices to adequately convey EPA's
objectives to States and work with them to meet those objectives.

Provide Support

Good leadership also means providing support to States as customers to help them
implement their programs in a manner consistent with EPA's vision. EPA should work to
identify the needs of States to improve their capability to implement their programs and
meet the expectations of the national program. Throughout the interviewing process
States, Regional Offices, and others mentioned a variety of needs. Many of these concepts
build upon the five themes identified in EPA's "Agenda for the Future. These themes are:

increase public awareness;

provide information on successful solutions;
identify financial forces and incentives;

support state and local regulatory programs; and
ensure the application of good science.

As part of the role it defines for itself, EPA should continue to focus on
implementing these themes, working with States to determine more specifically what kind
of assistance the national program or Regional Offices can provide to assist States in


E. MEASURING WATER QUALITY IMPACTS

Finding: The majority of States are making some effort to monitor the effectiveness of
BMP implementation, though water quality impacts due to implementation
of §319 are as yet unknown.

Importance of Water Quality Monitoring

Water quality monitoring is an essential component of BMP implementation
projects, serving as a means to measure the impacts of implementation and progress in
improving water quality. Section 319 requires States to report on reductions in pollutant
loadings and water quality improvements which are a result of implementation of the
SMPs. EPA, through its national §319 grant guidance, has also emphasized the importance
of monitoring water quality improvements, directing Regional Offices to require that all
watershed projects supported by §319 resources contain “clearly stated monitoring
objectives and an evaluation strategy."16 The guidance also directs the Regional Offices to
set aside five percent of their entire §319 Regional funding allocation to support more
intensive water quality monitoring of selected projects as part of a national monitoring
program to document the feasibility of controlling NPS pollution. However, because
§319-funded projects have generally been in place for less than a year, as would be expected,
water quality improvements stemming from their implementation generally cannot yet be
detected.

Monitoring Efforts

Although the ten States’ descriptions of monitoring in projects funded by §319
resources are often written in very general terms, the majority of projects which implement
BMPs contain some type of measure to determine the effectiveness of their
implementation. Project monitoring efforts variously include a mix of ambient water
quality monitoring, biological assessments, model projections and photographic evidence,
as recommended in the grant guidance. Most implementation projects appear to be
monitored on a pre- and post-implementation basis, and few involve upstream and
downstream comparisons or include paired watershed monitoring. Officials in most of the
States placed little emphasis on achievements in water quality monitoring and generally
gave the impression that improvements in monitoring are needed, both in the
implementation of projects supported by §319 resources and for other projects within the
scope of SMP implementation.

Seven of the ten States are using §319 resources specifically to conduct water quality
monitoring projects. Three of these States use §319 resources to support water quality

16 EPA, Office of Water, "Guidance on the Award and Management of Nonpoint
Source Program Implementation Grants Under Section 319(h) of the Clean Water
Act," January 14, 1991, p. 20.
28


D. IMPROVE PROGRAM OVERSIGHT

Recommendation:

EPA should continue to improve its oversight capability and encourage States to
develop quantifiable measures of success.

Identify Measures of Success

In concert with identifying long term goals for the national NPS program and a
strategic plan for meeting these goals, OW, Regional Offices, and States need to develop
measures of success for the §319 program. Such measures serve two important purposes:
to inform Congress and the public of overall successes and challenges in improving water
quality, and to help determine program effectiveness and plan for the use of future
resources. Measures should indicate cumulative accomplishments of States in attaining
water quality and implementation goals as well as progress made by EPA in supporting
State implementation of their NPS programs.

Develop Standardized Evaluations

Measures of success should serve as the basis of criteria to include in standardized
evaluations of both State programs and Regional Office performance. Working with
Regional Offices and States, the Assessment and Watershed Protection Division (AWPD)
should determine what criteria are necessary to meet both national accountability needs as
well as program evaluation and planning needs. Standardized evaluation formats should
be developed for States and Regional Offices, and headquarters staff should conduct such
evaluations of Regional Offices and selected States at least annually. They should also be
used to build consistency among Regional approaches toward implementing the NPS
program. Part of this effort to develop consistent evaluative information should be the
completion of the grant tracking system that EPA is currently developing.

Standardize Grant Proposals

Headquarters and Regional staff should also work to define a standardized format
and minimum information requirements that must be included in all grant proposals.
EPA should work to develop parameters of information necessary for project proposals,
including quantifiable outputs, and the level of detail necessary to approve plans. This
action would improve consistency of the quality of proposals and assist evaluation of the
national program. If grant work programs contain consistent, accurate information, they
could be an excellent resource for building an archive to which States or EPA could refer in
planning new projects or in trying to improve old ones. Such an archive could also
facilitate the transfer of information across States. Finally, more consistent and
comprehensive documentation of projects should improve the institutional memory of

45


technical assistance, and other functions which may directly or indirectly improve water
quality in a specific watershed.

27


focus on States’ implementation of their SMP milestones. Reporting requirements for
States also differ among Regional Offices, both in form and conten’.

B. OVERALL PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

EPA provided States the opportunity to develop diverse NPS programs, but has not
yet defined a vision or role for a national NPS program. Througs its initial NPS and grant
guidance, EPA allowed States great flexibility in developing theit programs. However, EPA
has not established a clear vision to help set the direction or create a common framework
for the national program. EPA also does not have a strategy for implementing the program
or an identifiable role for supporting State programs. Finally, the §319 program has suffered
from an absence of EPA Headquarters attention. Upper management and staff'have been
working to implement the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 and
have not been able to show adequate support for, or conduct adequate oversight of, the §319
program

TV. RECOMMENDATIONS TO EPA

A. EMPHASIZE WATERSHED PROTECTION

In order to provide greater focus for the NPS program, the Office of Water should
more clearly and strongly emphasize that a watershed protection approach be the basis of
State NPS programs. The Office of Water should encourage Congress to require (and to
provide resources for) revisions to State Management Programs. The Office of Water
should develop SMP guidance to clarify how to define and implement a watershed-focused
NPS program and should revise §319 grant guidance to increase emphasis on
implementing watershed projects.

B. DEFINE PROGRAM GOALS AND ROLES

The Office of Water and Regional Offices should clearly define EPA's goals, strategy
and role for the national NPS program. The Office of Water needs to clearly define its
expectations for the national NPS program. In defining a supporting role for itself, EPA
should specifically consider ways to implement the themes originally identified in the
"Agenda for the Future." To assure support for the program, OW should initiate a process
for involving Regional Offices, States, and others to determine leadership roles and support
needs.


ranking waters to determine NPS control implementation priorities.15 Four of the ten
States reviewed do not seem to have any formal mechanism for determining priorities for
using their §319 resources on a watershed-specific basis. Two other States, Colorado and
Massachusetts, have identified some mechanism or list of waterbodies for setting
implementation priorities, but have not, or have not yet, used them. For example,
Colorado's SMP describes a four-year schedule for implementing demonstration projects,
many of which are to be implemented using §319 resources, in specified watersheds. The
SMP also identifies a method for prioritizing projects within these watersheds. However,
due to changing priorities or circumstances, Colorado has chosen to make its decisions
annually about where to use its §319 resources to conduct NPS control activities (as have
most of the ten States) rather than use the method described in its SMP. Massachusetts
appears to be the only State to have developed a process to target its use of §319 resources
geographically in direct response to EPA guidance. Massachusetts intends to use this
process beginning with the FY 1992 grant cycle, although the selection process still needs
refinement to better identify specific watersheds in which to implement projects.

Four Watershed-Specific Approaches

A few State NPS programs are exceptional in their watershed-specific orientation.
Wisconsin, North Carolina, Kansas, and Oregon each has programs that address NPS
problems on a watershed-specific basis. (Other watershed-specific programs, such as
Pennsylvania's Chesapeake Bay Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement Program, are not
included here because the LNPSA does not have responsibility for this program.) Three of
these States rely primarily on State resources to implement their programs and use §319
resources only to supplement their efforts.

Wisconsin's Bureau of Water Resources Management has had a well-developed cost-
sharing program (mentioned earlier) since 1979 to conduct comprehensive NPS control
projects in priority watersheds in a systematic manner. Through earlier basin planning
efforts, the State identified 131 out of 300 watersheds, through a ranking system, as
threatened or impaired from NPS pollution. Fifty-six projects, which last roughly eight
years each, have been initiated or completed since 1979, and the State has a proposed goal of
initiating projects in all 131 watersheds by 2000.

In North Carolina, the LNPSA has been working to classify waterbodies which will
be subject to varying degrees of land development regulation. In 1990, North Carolina
initiated a whole basin approach toward water quality management which incorporates
regulation of point and nonpoint sources and subsumes the State's NPS program. This
approach merges numerous programs to focus on basin-wide water quality issues. Methods
for integrating this program with the agricultural cost-sharing program do not yet seem
well-defined, and full implementation of this program has not begun.

15 Since data were first gathered for this study, Pennsylvania has reportedly developed
an assessment which ranks watersheds zccording t) a priority based on pollution
potential.

18


Regional Offices established their own procedures. Half of the Regional Offices have some
kind of formal evaluation which rates individual projects by assigning points to specific
criteria. These criteria vary from Region to Region, and range from being a checklist to
assure certain components have been included in a project proposal to questions which
focus more on the quality of the project. Other Regional Offices have a much more
informal approach, whereby grants are circulated among different program offices and
decisions are made after comments are received. All Regional Offices maintain that grants
must be consistent with SMPs, but because of the breadth and lack of specificity of many
SMPs, this criterion does not seem very useful. A few Regional Offices seem to emphasize
the importance of States’ past performance in considering approval of grants.

Oversight

Oversight of States’ implementation of §319 also varies among Regional Offices.
Although Regional Offices assure that grants are consistent with SMPs, few give the
impression that SMP implementation is among the Regional Offices’ primary concerns for
implementing §319. The majority of Regional Offices do not seem to focus on assuring
State adherence to SMP milestones or in providing assistance to meet milestones which are
not specifically related to the use of §319 resources. In implementing §319, most Regional
Offices concentrate on assuring that grants are appropriate, though some also provide
assistance to States to improve grant proposals, and others provide other forms of
NPS-related technical assistance.

Regional reviews of State NPS programs and Regional reporting requirements for
States also differ from Region to Region. There is no consistency among Regional Offices in
the content or form of information which they collect in order to assess States' performance
in implementing their NPS programs. While some Regional Offices have developed
guides for themselves to assess States, others seem to assess States in a much more informal
manner. All Regional Offices require States to submit semiannual and annual reports on
§319 implementation progress; a few also require quarterly reports on grant
implementation. Only two Regional Offices have developed report formats for collecting
information on progress States are making at implementing their §319 grants. Most
Regional Offices report visiting their States at least once a year; however, many Regional
and State staff argue that this is insufficient, and that the lack of travel funds severely limits
Regional Offices’ ability to conduct adequate oversight.

A few Regional Offices have used conditional approval as a means to influence State
grant proposals, while meeting EPA deadlines for grant approval. This mechanism enables
Regional Offices to assure that more detailed workplans are developed before resources are
released to the States to implement their grant projects. While this process has caused
some frustration for States which cannot adequately plan for when resources will become
available, it also gives the States an opportunity to improve grant proposals which
otherwise might not be funded.

35


B. OVERALL PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

Finding: EPA provided States the opportunity to develop diverse NPS programs, but
has not yet defined a vision or role for a national NPS program.

Engendering Diverse State Programs

EPA's 1987 NPS guidance to States was fairly broad. The guidance provided little
elaboration on vague statutory requirements of what the SMPs should contain, nor did it
provide much direction on the statute's requirement to develop SMPs on a watershed-by-
watershed basis. EPA's philosophy at that time has been characterized as one of giving
maximum flexibility to States to develop their own programs for addressing NPS pollution.
As mentioned previously, the §319 grant guidance also has supported the flexible character
of the national program. The broad objectives and numerous implementation priorities of
the guidance describe a wide range of issues that State NPS programs should address.
Flexibility for States to determine their priority NPS problems and the strategies by which
they ultimately will achieve BMP implementation is important to allow for the differences
in environmental, economic, political, and cultural conditions among States. EPA has
allowed States the necessary flexibility to design their programs and direct use of their §319
resources, but has allowed diversity to flourish at the expense of the development of a
coherent national program.

Vision

EPA's flexible approach has benefitted the aims of individual States, but it has not
been effectively complemented by the provision of a clear vision of what the NPS program
needs to accomplish. Many States and Regional Offices have expressed frustration by what
they perceive as a lack of leadership or sense of purpose for the national program, though
they, too, have been unable to reconcile the balance between flexibility and the need for
stronger program direction. The Agency's NPS and grant guidance have attempted to
provide some direction to States by emphasizing a watershed approach and development of
a balanced program, but neither long term goals for the national program nor EPA
expectations for State NPS programs have been clearly communicated or reinforced at
Headquarters, Regional, or State levels.

EPA has also not successfully identified a supportive role for itself to assist States
implement their NPS programs. In January 1989, EPA issued an “Agenda for the Future"22
which contained a list of objectives for providing specific assistance to States as well as an
ambitious five-year schedule for implementation. Headquarters upper management has
acknowledged that the Agenda's five themes--public awareness, successful solutions,
financial forces and incentives, regulatory programs, and good science~are highly relevant

22 EPA, Office of Water, "Nonpoint Sources Ageada for the Future: Nonpoint Source
Solutions,” January 1989.

36


address the goals of the SMPs. Additionally, comparisons i the of §319 resources across
the two years of implementation were not viabie because of the newness of the program
and the lack of long-term priorities. Finaliy, States implementation of their grant work
programs was not assessed. Anecdotal information suggests tha! the majority of States
have made progress in implementing their FY 1990 projects, though a few States have
experienced significant delays in starting projects. FY 199! grant resources generally became
available to the States in August 1991, and implemeruatior: of these projects had only just
begun when study data were collected

Aggregate Distribution of Resources

In the aggregate, the ten States’ use of §339 resources was fairly evenly divided
among the nine categories. Chart 1 shows the aggregate distribution of resources among, the
categories. Projects whose primary focus was to implement BMPs received a significantly

AGGREGATE USE OF 1990-1991 GRANT FUNDS

BMP EDUCATION (12%)

IMPLEMENTATION
ASSESSMENT (8%)
: BMP
DEVELOPMENT
ay (8%)

(21%)
EVALUATION (7%)

REGULATION (10%)

TECHNICAL

ASSISTANCE (6%)

MANAGEMENT
(15%)

MISCELLANEOUS
(12%)

CHART 1

greater amount of resources (21%) during the two year period than did other categories
However, the States conducted a wide diversity of BMP implementation projects. Many ot
these projects contain activities that may be classified into the other categories. For
example, numerous BMP implementation projects contain strong education as well as
water quality monitoring components. Specific examples of BMP implementation projects
include: a demonstration project in Oregon to introduce riparian vegetation and conduct
streambank stabilization activities in a creek, a Massachusetts project to install filter beds to
remove NPS pollutants from a reservoir water supply, and, in Wisconsin, the hiring of an

24


F. INTERAGENCY COORDINATION
Emphasis on Cooperation .......
§319 Advisory Committees ......
Encouraging Local Participation ..
Some Tension Among Agencies

I. FINDINGS ON EPA'S ROLE ........... 0. ccc cece cece eect eee en eee ee eens 33
A. REGIONAL PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION .................000250055 33
Organizing to Control NPS Pollution se. 33
Staffing 2.2... cee cee ce cece e cece eee een e ene n nner ee ve 33
Grant Guidance 34
Grant Approval .. _#
Oversight 20.0... 6 cece cece tee een eet ee tee ee tee eee e nent en eennes 35
B. OVERALL PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ... 36
Engendering Diverse State Programs . 36
AS (0) 36
Headquarters Presence ..........-.. ce cee eect e eee eee ee ete eect eeenes 37
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS TO EPA ...........cccee eet e eect eee e enn e tree neeee 38
A. EMPHASIZE WATERSHED PROTECTION ...........-:++sseeeeeeeeeeee 38
Seek SMP Revisions ... . 38
Revise SMP Guidance . . 38
Revise Grant Guidance 39
B. DEFINE PROGRAM GOALS AND ROLES ...............00e eee eeeeeees 40
Provide Direction .................. -.. 40
Provide Support ... 40
Involve Others 42
C. SHOW SUPPORT FOR PROGRAM .............0000eeeeseeeee - B
Increase Visibility ........... cee eeee cere nee 43
Emphasize NPS in Agency Operating Guidance . 43
Increase Regional Office Resources ............- . B
Request Resources From Congress ..........eeceeeceree eee e een eenees 44
D. IMPROVE PROGRAM OVERSIGHT ...............66 6.0 cc cece cece eee
Identify Measures of Success ......
Develop Standardized Evaluations .
Standardize Grant Proposals ..........

Strengthen Headquarters-Regional Link

ii


C. SHOW SUPPORT FOR PROGRAM

Recommendation:

The Office of Water should more visibly support the NPS program and send a
message to the States, Regional Offices, and other Federal agencies that the NPS
program is among the Agency's top priorities.

Increase Visibility

Visible support for the NPS program by EPA 1s very important encouragement for
States who are beginning to build their own ‘NPS programs. EPA has the responsibility to
focus national attention on controlling NPS pollution and set examples for government
agencies as well as the public To change the focus of water pollution abatement toward the
control of nonpoint sources, EPA must demonstrate that NPS pollution control is among
the Agency's top priorities. EPA Headquarters should continue and expand its effort to be a
national leader in working to control NPS pollution.

In addition to supporting NPS control at the national level, Office of Wetlands,
Oceans, and Watersheds mana _s should increase their visible support for the program at
the Regional and State levels. ite agencies that have a traditional fo. 1s on controlling
point sources must receive strong encouragement from EPA to shift ther priorities. The
NPS program travel budget should be expanded to allow and encourage senior managers
and staff to make more frequent visits to Regional Offices and States to promote the
program as well as collect information to help sharpen the focus of the program and
respond to changes in States’ needs.

Emphasize NPS in Agency Operating Guidance

Just as it must encourage States and other Federal agencies to make NPS control a
priority, EPA must assure that, within the Agency, NPS control receives appropriate
attention. The Agency Operating Guidance is a valuable method by which OW can identify
NPS control as an Agency priority. The Office of Water should increase the emphasis given
to NPS-related programs within the Agency Operating Guidance to demonstrate its
continuing commitment to NPS control. The Office of Water can further support
implementation of the NPS program by continuing to emphasize use of the watershed
protection approach within the operating guidance and by stressing cooperation among
NPS-related programs to implement §319.

Increase Regional Office Resources

The Office of Water should continue to work to provide more FTE and travel
resources to Regional Offices to assist States to develop and effectively implement their

43


implementing their programs more effectively.23 Some specific actions EPA could consider

include:

1.

Expand efforts to assist States in developing and applying TMDLs to address
NPS problems on a watershed-specific basis.

Develop a case-specific data base of BMPs to be accessed by States and Regional
Offices.

Develop a compendium of model laws, programs (regulatory, technical
assistance, monitoring, education, incentive, and voluntary), and watershed
project plans which States and Regional Offices can use as a guide and/or as a
reference in making decisions about what State programs lack and what they
need.

Encourage States to pilot innovative regulatory mechanisms on a
watershed-specific basis, possibly through §319 set-aside funds.

Promote use of the State Revolving Fund and other innovative sources of
resources to support States’ implementation of their NPS programs.

Continue to develop and encourage the use of protocols to standardize the
minimum NPS monitoring requirements necessary to measure changes in
water quality.

Encourage and provide assistance to States to document results of BMP
implementation projects, especially those not supported by §319 grants.

Provide assistance to States to develop strategies to publicize the impacts of
their NPS control efforts.

Convene a group of State and Regional Office representatives to prepare a
strategy for revising SMPs to reflect a watershed approach.

23 The need to fully implement these themes is also recommended in the 1990 General
Accounting Office (GAO) report on EPA leadership for reducing NPS pollution.
United States General Accounting Office, “Report to the Chairman and Ranking
Minority Member, Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on
Public Works and Transportation, House of Representatives—Water Pollution:
Greater EPA Leadership Needed to Reduce Nonpoint Sou.ce Pollution,” October

1990.

41


addressing this source in their SMPs. EPA's "Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution,"”
presents an excellent description of the diversity of NPS problems that exist among the
States based on information provided in States’ Assessment Reports.

Finding: Authority for implementing SMPs is generally decentralized.

Given the diversity of nonpoint sources to be addressed, EPA's 1987 NPS guidance
recommended that Governors designate their water quality management agencies to lead
the §319 program because they “are generally in the best position to carry out the overall
NPS assessment and program development requirements of section 319. “® Additionally,
several of these agencies’ traditional activities for controlling point source pollution, such
as developing water quality standards and conducting water quality monitoring, are also
integral components of a NPS control program. These agencies are to be responsible for
developing and implementing State Assessments Reports and SMPs and to be the
recipients of §205(j)(5) and §319 grant funds, which they may allocate to other agencies or
organizations, as appropriate, to implement projects. All of the ten States reviewed
designated their departments of environmental protection (or equivalent) to implement
their SMPs. In all of these States, however, the water quality management sub-divisions of
these agencies were explicitly or implicitly delegated authority to act as the lead NPS
agencies (LNPSAs) in accordance with EPA guidance.

Active involvement of multiple agencies is vital in order to successfully implement
a program to control the multiple sources of NPS pollution. As mentioned above,
numerous agencies share responsibilities for programs that address NPS problems whether
or not they are included in a SMP. However, providing effective leadership and
organization for all participants is a serious challenge faced by most LNPSAs, who have
primary responsibility for the §319 program. This section of the report focuses specifically
on the authority and role of LNPSAs to implement §319, but it does not diminish the
relevance of other environmentally-related programs’ contributions to controlling NPS
pollution. A later finding of this report (II.F. Interagency Coordination”) further considers
coordination efforts among LNPSAs and other agencies and organizations.

Limits on Authority

Because the numerous sources of NPS pollution are addressed by a wide variety of
State, Federal and local agency programs, the LNPSAs do not have authority to implement
all of the programs identified in States’ SMPs. Other organizational units (e.g., divisions or
bureaus) or other agencies have independent authority to implement programs which

7 EPA, Office of Water, “Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution: Final Report to
Congress on Section 319 of the Clean Water Act” (1989), January 1992, p. 5.

8 EPA, Office of Water, “Nonpoint Source Guidance,” December 1987, p. 20.
11


role is to develop water quality standards, conduct NPS monitoring and BMP effectiveness
evaluations, provide leadership in identifying NPS program needs and funding resources,
and facilitate development of effective NPS programs of designated management agencies.9
The LNPSA itself is not the major actor responsible for implementing NPS controls.
Massachusetts’ SMP likewise emphasizes that its main objective is to develop “a statewide
networked program which will draw on the expertise and skills of various ... agencies..."10
The role of the LNPSA is identified throughout the SMP as providing assistance to other
programs, as needed, to improve their focus on implementing NPS controls.

LNPSAs' allocation of §319 resources also exemplifies their interest in facilitating
and coordinating NPS efforts. Among the six States in which the LNPSAs emphasize their
role as coordinators, five distributed 65% or more of their 1990-1991 §319 grant resources to
other agencies, sub-agencies, or organuzations to implement NPS projects or programs. By
contrast, in the four remaining States in which the LNPSAs do not view their roles as
primarily facilitative, the LNPSAs used 60% or more of the §319 resources for
implementation of their own NPS programs.

Finding: The extent to which States are institutionalizing their NPS programs varies
widely.

Extent of Institutionalization

States are in various stages of implementing their NPS programs, and the level of
institutional support for these programs varies widely. Because there is no single
definition of a NPS program, institutional support for such programs is also difficult to
define or estimate across the States. Organization, resources,and staffing may be used as
indicators of the extent of institutionalization, but because there are often no distinct
boundaries to States’ NPS programs, comprehensive estimates of NPS staff and resources
are generally unavailable. Several Regional Offices confirmed that this information cannot
be readily obtained, commenting that generally.information submitted to EPA to meet
statutory "maintenance of effort" requirements was highly variable in quality and could not
be used to estimate the size of States' NPS programs. As a way to gauge the
institutionalization of State NPS programs, this report focuses primarily on the
organization, staffing, and resources of the LNPSAs because they are designated to
implement the SMPs. Such focus greatly underestimates the extent to which staff and
resources in other programs are being dedicated to implementing NPS controls, and in a
few States, exceptional situations are noted.

9 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, "Nonpoint Source Statewide
Management Plan For Oregon,” July 1989, p.. 21.

10 Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Environmental Protection,
Division of Water Pollution Control. "Nonpoint Source Management Plan,” 1989, p.
2.

13


A. DEFINING THE NPS PROGRAM ..

. SETTING WATERSHED-SPECIFIC PRIORITIES

State Management Programs ........
Wide Range of NPS-related Programs ..
Limits on Authority —........
Lead NPS Agencies as \ vordinators
Extent of Institutionalization ........-. 0.66 c cece cece eee eee eee
NPS Program Organizational Units .............2.eseeeee seen eee
State Resources
Use of §319 Funds for Staff
Other EP.‘. Resources

Relation to Water Quality Goals
Waterbody Ranking ................
Four Watershed-Specific Approaches

IMPLEMENTATION OF STATE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS ....
SMP Milestone Variability ....
Amendments to State Management Programs
Use of Annual Reports

STATES' USE OF §319 GRANTS
Flexible Guidance ............
Diversity of Grant Projects ..
Characterization of Grant Projects .
Aggregate Distribution of Resources ...
Individual States’ Use of §319 Resources | : wee
Program Balance ..........- esses eee eee eet e eee e ete net e eee

MEASURING WATER QUALITY IMPACTS
Importance of Water Quality Monitoring ....
Monitoring Efforts ................see sees
One State's Monitoring Effort



example, several Regional Offices have State coordinators whu ase responsible for
administering numerous water program grants, such as those for $14, §106, §205, §314,
§320, §604(b) in addition to §319, which do not specifically conside: NPS pollution. Only a
fraction of their time is actually spent directly addressing NPS prabiems or administering
§319.

Furthermore, having eight or nine staff which broadly work on NPS control is not
the same as having dedicated staff to implement §319. §319 staff are responsible for
approving SMPs and §319 grants and assisting the States to implement them. The actual
number of staff dedicated to implementing §319 is much lower, their work year hours
ranging from roughly 0.5 full-time equivalents (FTE) in one Regional Office to possibly 4
FTE in others. Each Regional Office has a designated Regional NPS Coordinator, but in
several Regional Offices, this individual has several non-§319 related responsibilities.

Finding: Regional Office implementation of the §319 grant program varies
considerably across the Regions.

The Regional Offices have been delegated authority to implement §319. Generally,
because the Regional Office staff have a better appreciation of individual States’ problems
and program capabilities, they can provide the flexibility to taulor the program to address
States’ interests. As part of fulfilling their obligation to implement the §319 program, each
Regional Office has developed its own guidance, grant approval processes, and oversight
mechanisms to address its implementation needs.

Grant Guidance

Most Regional Offices provide their own grant guidance to States. Although
Regional guidance is consistent with national guidance, the Regional Offices vary in the
direction they provide to the States. The majority of Regional Offices suggests a format for
project proposals as well as identifies Regional priorities that specify pollutant source
categories, geographic areas, or programmatic goals that will be favored in States’ grant
proposals. Two Offices, Regions 6 and 9, also provide State-specific grant guidance. Region
6 guidance is exceptional, in not only helping States to identify geographic targets by
referring to the State Assessment Reports, but in providing
models for grant project proposals. In contrast, a few Regional Offices’ guidance offers little
more to States than a restatement of the national guidance.

Grant Approval

Methods for approving grant proposals also vary considerably across the Regional
Offices. Beginning in FY 1991, Headquarters directed Regional Offices to award half of the
Regional §319 grant allocation to States on a competitive basis. However, Headquarters
guidance did not specify how competitive awards should be determined, and, consequently.

34


D. STATES' USE OF §319 GRANTS

Section 319 authorizes EPA to award grants to States ta assist them in implementing
their SMPs. EPA issued interim guidance for FY 1990 to guide States in their use of §319
resources to implement their SMPs and issued final grant guidance for FY 1991 and
subsequent years. For FY 1990 and FY 1991, the ten States received over $12 million in §319
resources. The States received annual grants ranging from $320,000 to $1.2 million.

Finding: Flexible guidance has enabled States to use §319 resources to address
numerous NPS priorities.

Flexible Guidance

The FY 1991 §319 grant guidance is comprehensive and flexible. At least sixteen
national priorities and numerous other objectives guide the States’ decisions in using the
§319 resources. The grant guidance is relatively short, yet covers many topic areas, the
result being that it is open to wide interpretation.

A major message of the guidance is the encouragement to States to build viable
institutions while at the same time implementing watershed projects that will yield quick
demonstrable improvements in water quality and win increased public support. The
guidance also gives flexibility to Regional Offices and States to address their individual
priorities and accounts for possible differences in the levels of institutionalization among
State programs. As a modification to the FY 1990 guidance, the FY 1991 guidance further
directs Regional Offices to use a portion of the §319 grant funds to support States’ "base
programs" and to distribute the remaining funds to the States on a competitive basis.
Competitive awards are intended to support the most effective and innovative projects and
program activities. Finally, the guidance identifies several criteria which a grant proposal
must meet before it can be approved Many of these criteria address accountability and
performance issues and have their origins in statutory requirements.

Diversity of Grant Projects

States, with the approval of Regional Offices, have used the flexibility in the grant
guidance to conduct a wide variety of activities with §319 funds. Within each of their
annual grant work programs, the States described between two and eighteen separate
implementation projects, ranging in value from $80 to nearly $500,000. During FY 1990 and
FY 1991, the Regional Offices approved 188 projects within the grant work programs of the
ten States. “§319 resources” or “§319 funds” in this report refers only to the Federal
resources allocated to the States for the projects identified in the grant work programs. By
law, States are required to contribute at least 40% of the cost of the grant work programs
which receive Federal funds through §319, but in many cases, the States did not identify

2


IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 319
NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAMS

FINAL REPORT

November 24, 1992

Program Evaluation Division
Office of Regulatory Management and Evaluation
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency


both State programs and EPA's program, thus reducing reliante on sndividuals to carry the
program.

Strengthen Headquarters-Regicna! Link

AWPD should work to improve its interaction with Regrana! Offices for the transfer
of basic prograra information and to provide greater assistance in reviewing and umproving
State NPS programs. All AWPD liaisons should be familiar with the State Assessment
Reports, State Management Programs, and annual work program grants for all States in the
Regions for which they are responsible. Liaisons should conduct spot checks of grant
proposals to assure that the Regicnal Offices and States are addressing national priorities
and developing quantifiabie outputs for projects. Liaisons should also receive and review
State quarterly and annual reports to remain current with the status of State
implementation to be able to respond knowledgeably to external inquiries and assis!
Regional Offices in improving future State activities. Finally, AWPD haisons should visit
Regional Offices and selected States at least once a j ear to conduct on-site evaluations and
mainta.n personal contacts with Regional and State officials to build program trust and
continuity.

46


F. INTERAGENCY COORDINATION

Cooperation among agencies and organizations is an essential component of
implementing States’ NPS programs. Section 319 explicitly directs States to involve local
public and private agencies and organizations "to the maximum extent practicable"!9 to
develop and implement SMPs. The statute also contains additional requirements for
cooperation among State and local agencies as well as across States where appropriate.20
EPA grant guidance also includes as one of its main objectives the encouragement of strong
relationships among Federal, State, and local NPS-related programs "to create long-term
program effectiveness."21

Finding: §319 has facilitated increased communication and coordination among
agencies and organizations to develop and implement the State Management
Programs.

Emphasis on Cooperation

LNPSAs have generally worked to engage the cooperation of other State, Federal and
local agencies, as well as universities and private organizations, to implement the SMPs
and specific NPS control activities. Many of the relationships among agencies, especially
those related to agricultural interests, existed prior to §319, although the involvement of
the LNPSAs and their focus on NPS control may not have been a substantial part of these
relationships. Most of the States reviewed emphasize the importance of broad participation
of agencies and organizations to implement their programs, and several SMPs have cited
multi-agency participation as an important goal of their programs. Many of the States also
identify multi-organization advisory groups within their SMPs which are responsible for
the coordination of numerous NPS-related programs or activities. At least three States
specifically formed advisory groups to assist in the development of their SMPs and then to
assist in their implementation.

The majority of LNPSAs has signed memoranda of understanding or cooperative
agreements with other State and Federal agencies. The memoranda establish formal
communication links among the agencies and formalize the responsibilities necessary to

19 Water Quality Act (CWA), Section 319(b)(3).

20 Provisions to assure Federal consistency with States’ programs are also included in
the statute, though their use in improving State/Federal coordination was not
within the scope of this study.

a EPA, Office of Water, "Guidance on the Award and Management of Nonpoint
Source Program Implementation Grants Under Section 319(h) of the Clean Water
Act," January 14, 1991, p. 7.

30


expectations of what types of goals, strategies, milestones, and measures of success should be
included in SMPs. Guidance should more clearly establish a range of activities necessary to
be included within a watershed-focused NPS program and should also direct States to set
goals for improving the quality of specific waters and identify quantifiable interim
milestones to meet those goals.

Achieving BMP implementation to improve water quality is the ultimate goal of a
watershed protection approach. However, watershed-oriented programs or projects need
not be rigidly defined as fully comprehensive BMP implementation projects which require
massive infusions of resources for cost-sharing or monitoring. States will still have the
right and responsibility to determine their own priorities for using their resources to
achieve BMP implementation through education, technical assistance or transfer programs,
financial incentives, or regulations in any watershed.

Revise Grant Guidance

The Office of Water should revise §319 grants guidance to limit the number of
priorities and emphasize implementation on a watershed-specific basis. Guidance should
expand upon the watershed concepts already offered by the Agency and address how grant
projects may appropriately support larger-scale watershed protection efforts. It should also
continue to emphasize project selection based on waterbody rankings and environmental
risk. The Office of Water should also curtail the number of priority activities contained in
the guidance, focusing on those priorities which will assist in the implemeniation of
watershed projects.

39


easement coordinator to arrange the purchase of easements to abate and prevent NPS
pollution in priority watershed projects.

Management was the category to receive the next largest share of §319 resources
(15%) for the two year period. Management projects entail supporting program staff,
usually to implement the overall NPS program or a mix of specific or non-specific
activities. These projects are not ordinarily site-specific and generally appear to be of
indefinite duration. In some States, such as Massachusetts, program staff were initially
supported by §205(j)(5) resources, but as these sources of funding are depleted, §319
resources are replacing them.

Miscellaneous (12%), education (12%), and regulation-related (10%) projects all also
have received 10% or more of the §319 resources available during FY 1990 and FY 1991. The
majority of regulation-related projects are generally for the development and
implementation of regulations to control stormwater discharges in municipalities not
regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Education
projects generally address urban runoff problems or agricultural issues and may be
site-specific or Statewide programs. The other project categories received less than 10% of
the aggregate State resources for FY 1990 and FY 1991.

Finding: States concentrate their use of §319 resources to focus on different priority
activities.

Individual States' Use of §319 Resources

Although the aggregate distribution of §319 resources is fairly even across the nine
categories, individual States have emphasized different types of activities. Chart 2 identifies
the project categories in which each State has dedicated over 20% of its §319 resources. The
majority of States are using between 20% and 30% of their §319 resources to implement two
or three types of projects. Four States focused 50% or more of their resources on one
particular category of activities. These areas of concentration illustrate differences in States’
priorities for using §319 resources to implement their NPS programs.

For some States, the area of concentrated use of resources reflects their program's
emphasis. For example, Colorado's NPS program is primarily intended to conduct
relatively small-scale BMP implementation projects to u: onstrate the effectiveness of
new or innovative BMPs. Over 50% of this State's FY 1990 and FY 1991 resources were
dedicated to these types of projects. Louisiana's overall NPS program focuses on education,
which is considered by Louisiana to be the best means to effect a long-term change in
individuals’ behavior and thus reduce NPS loadings. Nearly 80% of the State's §319
resources have been used to support educational efforts to address agricultural,
silvicultural, and wetlands and estuarine NPS sources. Thus, while Chart 2 depicts States’
use of §319 grant resources, it does not necessarily indicate how States use all available
resources to implement their NPS programs.


IL FINDINGS ON STATE IMPLEMENTATION OF PROGRAMS

A. DEFINING THE NPS PROGRAM

Finding: Because of the diverse nature of NPS pollution, there is no single definition
of a NPS program.

Although the Clean Water Act does not contain a specific definition of NPS
pollution, EPA defines nonpoint sources as those sources which do not meet the legal
definition of a “point source” in §502(14).1_ EPA elaborated on this definition in its
guidance to States for developing State Management Programs (1987 NPS Guidance)? by
providing examples of categories of activities which may result in NPS pollution and by
identifying pathways by which waters may be contaminated by NPS pollution. Categories of
activities causing NPS pollution identified by EPA range from agriculture and silviculture
to mining, urban runoff, and construction. Pathways of contamination identified include
surface runoff, precipitation, atmospheric deposition, and percolation.

State Management Programs

Section 319 requires that “[t]he Governor of each State... shall... prepare... a
management program which such State proposes to implement... for controlling pollution
added from nonpoint sources to the navigable waters within the State and improving the
quality of such waters."3 Though the States are required to develop a single State
Management Program (SMP) document, §319 does not necessarily require the States to
identify a single all-encompassing NPS program which can control all of their NPS
pollution. The statute actually encourages SMPs to identify all of the various "... programs
to achieve implementation of best management practices [BMPs] by the categories,
subcategories, and particular nonpoint sources..." affecting the waters identified in
Assessment Reports, which the States are also required to provide.

Section 319 also requires SMPs to focus on implementation, rather than planning,
but it allows States great flexibility to design their own NPS programs, giving the State the

1 EPA, Office of Water, “Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution: Final Report to
Congress on Section 319 of the Clean Water Act”(1989), January 1992, p. 5.

2 EPA, Office of Water, “Nonpoint Source Guidance,” December 1987, p. 3.
3 Water Ouality Act of 1987 (CWA), Section 319(b)(1).

4 Water Ouality Act of 1987 (CWA), §319(b)(2)(B).
9


affect nonpoint sources and are not accountable to the LNPSAs for their activities.
Additionally, although most LNPSAs are responsible for implementing the majority of the
milestones (scheduled implementation targets) in their SMPs, in a few SMPs, other
agencies (divisions) are responsible for implementing many, if mot ovost, of the milestones.

The independent authority of other agencies to admnuruster their own NPS-related
programs limits the role of the LNPSAs. LNPSAs which ale zwol tame their own State
sources of funding to implement the programs identified iu the SMPs have virtually no
leverage to encourage other agencies’ participation except through the allocation of §319
grants. Even among the five study States which dedicate substantial State resources to
implement specific NPS pollution control programs, three LNPSAs have little or no role in
influencing the use of these resources. One example is Pennsylvania, in which the
Department of Environmental Resources houses both the Bureaw of Soil and Water
Conservation (BSWC) and the Bureau of Water Quality Management (BWQM). The State
dedicates substantial State resources to implement its Chesapeake Bay Nonpoint Source
Pollution Abatement Program through the BSWC, but is administering the §319 program
through the BWQM, which has few resources for, and little influence in, implementing the
NPS program. Due to the experience and institutional framework that already exists within
the Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation, the State is seriously considering shifting
responsibility for administering the §319 program from the Bureau of Water Quality
Management to the Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation.

Responsibility for North Carolina's NPS program is also shared between the LNPSA
(located within the Division of Environmental Management of the Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources-DEHNR) and other agencies or sub-agencies,
especially the Division of Soil and Water Conservation (also in the DEHNR), which
administers the State-funded agricultural cost-sharing program. However, unlike most of
the other States studied, North Carolina's LNPSA also has responsibility for implementing
several NPS-related programs, such as stormwater control and wetlands protection in
addition to its responsibility to implement §319. In contrast, other States' LNPSAs do not
have authority to implement other programs such as wetlands or stormwater control
programs; the LNPSAs are often, at best, at a hierarchical level equal to other State agencies
(or divisions) which have authority for these NPS-related programs. From an
organizational standpoint, North Carolina's LNPSA has greater opportunity to influence
NPS-related programs than other States because it has a wider scope of authority .

Lead NPS Agencies as Coordinators

Although most of the LNPSAs reviewed have some programs of their own for
developing, implementing, or measuring NPS controls, the majority seem to serve more as
a focal point for facilitating and coordinating others’ efforts to implement NPS controls.
State officials and SMPs emphasize a supportive role rather than a directive one. Several
SMPs clearly describe providing assistance to, or encouraging the participation of, other
agencies as their primary strategy for achueving NPS controls. For example, Oregon bases its
NPS control program on the implementation of action plans which it develops through
memoranda of agreement with designated management agencies. The Oregon LNPSA's

12