Chesapeake Bay Watershed Assistance Network 

Access to Federal Funds 

A Collaborative Effort of the Chesapeake Bay Federal Agencies Committee and 

the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Assistance Network 

Chesapeake Bay Program 

Annapolis, Maryland 

March 2007 
CONTENTS 

Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... 4

Background ................................................................................................................................... 5

Executive Summary...................................................................................................................... 7

Network Findings.......................................................................................................................... 7

Next Steps .................................................................................................................................... 11

Conclusions.................................................................................................................................. 12

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Assistance Network Mission Statement ................................... 13

Federal Programs Descriptions and Interviews....................................................................... 14

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Service (FSA)............................... 15

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)/Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP).............................15

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (FS) ............................................... 19

Chesapeake Watershed Forestry Program ..............................................................................................................19

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) ....................................................... 22

Agricultural Management Assistance (AMA) ........................................................................................................22

Conservation Innovation Grants .............................................................................................................................24

Conservation Security Program (CSP) ...................................................................................................................26

Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA).............................................................................................................28

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) ..............................................................................................30

Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP) ..............................................................................................32

Grassland Reserve Program (GRP).........................................................................................................................34

Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP).........................................................................................................................36

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP).........................................................................................................38

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)........................................................................... 39

Non Point Source Implementation Grants (319 Program) ......................................................................................39

Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)........................................................................................................44

Chesapeake Bay State Implementation Grants (CBIG) ..........................................................................................49

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 

(NFWF) ........................................................................................................................................ 52

Chesapeake Bay Targeted Watershed Grants Program (TWG)..............................................................................52

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) ................................................................................... 56

Section 510 Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration Protection Program ......................................................56

Section 219 Environmental Infrastructure ..............................................................................................................58

Section 313 South Central Pennsylvania Environmental Improvement Program...................................................60

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ................................................................................................... 62

Federal Assistance to State Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs ...........................................................62

Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act) Grant Programs

................................................................................................................................................................................65

State Wildlife Grants ..............................................................................................................................................68
3

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)................................................ 70

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)................................................................................................................70

National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA).......................74

Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP)................................................................................78

U.S. Geological Survey ............................................................................................................... 81

Chesapeake Bay Studies .........................................................................................................................................81

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration................................. 83

Transportation Enhancements (TE's), Surface Transportation Program (STP) ......................................................83

Appendix A: Directive No. 04-2 Meeting the Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Goals –Next 

Steps ............................................................................................................................................. 87

Appendix B: The Resolution to Enhance Federal Cooperation and Coordination.............. 90

Appendix C: FY’05 Federal Spending Inventory.................................................................... 93

Appendix D: Chesapeake 2000 Keystone Commitments ........................................................ 94

Appendix E: Federal Spending on Keystone Commitment .................................................... 95

Appendix F: Chesapeake Executive Council: Federal Agencies Committee Tributary 

Strategy Backgrounder and Spending...................................................................................... 98
4

Acknowledgements 

Development of this document involved the cooperation of many federal agencies to gather 

materials and information that examine resources available for stakeholders in the 

implementation of Chesapeake Bay nutrient and sediment reduction strategies. Many thanks to 

the dedicated participants who provided documentation needed for this effort: Danielle Algazi, 

U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office; Ann Carkhuff, US EPA Water Protection Division 

Section 319; Nelson Castellanos, U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA Baltimore; Sally 

Claggett, USDA Forest Service; Kari Cohen, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service; 

Jennifer Griener, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Amy Guise, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Baltimore; Maggie Cunningham, US EPA Water Protection Division CWSRF; Suzanne Hall, US 

EPA Water Protection Division Section 319; Amy Handen, National Park Service; Dan Johnson, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA Baltimore; Catherine King, US EPA Water 

Protection Division CWSRF; John Kuriawa, NOAA Coastal Zone Management Act; Theresa 

Martella, U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office; Ginger Murphy, USDA Natural Resources 

Conservation Service; Marlys Osterhues, U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA HQ; 

Robert Pace, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore; Scott Phillips, USGS; Peyton 

Robertson, NOAA Chesapeake Bay Program Office; Bebe Shortall, USDA Farm Service 

Agency; Fred Suffian, US EPA Water Protection Division Section 319; Kyle Zieba, U.S. EPA 

Chesapeake Bay Program Office; Hank Zygmunt, U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office. 

 

 

 

Rebecca W. Hanmer, Director 

Chesapeake Bay Program Office 
5

Background 

The Chesapeake 2000 agreement has been guiding Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, the 

District of Columbia, the Chesapeake Bay Commission and the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) in their combined efforts to restore and protect the Chesapeake Bay. It defined 

the goal to “achieve and maintain the water quality necessary to support the aquatic living 

resources of the Bay and its tributaries and to protect human health.” Delaware, New York and 

West Virginia have also signed a Memorandum of Understanding, committing to implement the 

Water Quality Protection and Restoration section of the agreement. 

Chesapeake 2000 committed its signatories to: 

Continue efforts to achieve and maintain the 40 percent nutrient reduction 

goal agreed to in 1987 and correct the nutrient- and sediment-related 

problems in the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries sufficiently to 

remove the Bay and the tidal portions of its tributaries from the list of 

impaired waters under the Clean Water Act by 2010. 

In its 2003 Directive, “Meeting the Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Goals,” the Chesapeake 

Executive Council reaffirmed its commitment to this restoration effort. The Council directed the 

Chesapeake Bay Program to convene a Chesapeake Bay Watershed Blue Ribbon Panel to 

consider funding sources and actions to implement the state tributary strategies basinwide and to 

make recommendations regarding other actions at the federal, state and local level to the 

Executive Council.” The Blue Ribbon Panel met in 2004, and produced a comprehensive set of 

recommendations, including the need to: “improve coordination and cooperation among federal 

agencies with programs in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.” 

In its 2005 Directive No. 04-2, “Meeting the Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Goals – Next 

Steps,” the Chesapeake Bay Executive Council directed the Chesapeake Bay Program to, 

“establish a ‘Chesapeake Bay Watershed Funding Network’ which would include representatives 

from the Clean Water Act State Revolving Loan Fund programs throughout the watershed, 

USDA officials responsible for Farm Bill assistance to Bay watershed farmers for conservation 

and nutrient-sediment best management practices and other relevant financial assistance 

entities.” The directive states that the purpose of the network is to “establish a better mutual 

understanding of how existing financing programs operate, explore possibilities for greater 

effectiveness, and consider ways to improve financing of tributary strategy implementation.” In 

addition, the directive recommended improvedof coordination with federal agencies, including 

an annual high-level meeting to review program and funding relationships. 

In response to these directions, the first Chesapeake Bay Federal Principals meeting was held on 

October 7, 2005. At that meeting, high level federal representatives, supported by the 

Chesapeake Bay Program’s Federal Agencies Committee (FAC), confirmed their willingness to 

join with the Network by signing the Resolution to Enhance Federal Cooperative Conservation

in the Chesapeake Bay Program. In the Resolution the federal agencies agreed to cooperate with 

the Network to “provide resource managers, local governments, watershed associations and 

landowners with more effective access to appropriate programs of Federal and state agencies, in 

order to accelerate the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries.” The 

Resolution emphasizes the following purposes of the Network: (a) to establish better mutual 

understanding among existing federal and state financial assistance programs; and (b) explore 
6

possibilities through networking for greater effectiveness in funding projects to achieve the 

nutrient-sediment load reductions needed to meet the new Chesapeake Bay tidal water quality 

standards. 
7

Executive Summary 

This document is the Network’s first step into establishing a better mutual understanding of 

assistance programs that provide funds towards implementation of the state tributary strategies 

and the restoration of water quality in the Chesapeake Bay. The federal programs that are 

highlighted in this document were compiled by program managers that administer the funds 

associated with the programs. The federal programs consist of grants, loans, cost share and 

technical assistance programs. The agencies provided the Network with completed 

questionnaires that attempt to examine programs which the federal agencies believe have 

provided assistance or have the potential to provide assistance to local governments, farmers and 

other stakeholders in implementing tributary strategies. These programs are included as a 

portion of the Chesapeake Bay Federal Spending Inventory (see Appendix C, FY05 Federal 

Spending Inventory). The Spending Inventory includes the agencies’ direct and indirect 

spending on all Chesapeake 2000 commitments The information was compiled and reviewed 

by the FAC. This document will serve two purposes (1) to provide federal and state agencies 

with a better understanding of federal spending programs that may or may not be influencing the 

acceleration of tributary strategy implementation and (2) to review issues and opportunities 

associated with improved access to appropriate programs for stakeholders. 

This document will be presented to the Chesapeake Bay Program leadership, in order to assist 

the Bay Program jurisdictions to improve access to funding for implementation of Bay 

restoration actions. 

Network Findings 

Based on interviews with federal program managers, CBWAN presented the following findings 

at the second annual high level federal principal’s meeting on November 29, 2006: 

Challenges in Obtaining Federal Funds for State Tributary Strategy Implementation 

• There are few federal programs specifically targeted to the Chesapeake Bay. 

Accessibility to Federal funds is mainly driven by language in program mandates that 

specifically recognizes priority for Chesapeake Bay protection and restoration. USDA 

Farm Service Agency's Conservation Reserve Program/Conservation Reserve Enhancement 

Program (CRP/CREP) is an example of a federal program that specifically recognizes the 

Chesapeake Bay in program language. CRP/CREP is one of the most accessible federal 

voluntary programs that targets the implementation of conservation practices for nutrient and 

sediment load reductions in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and recognizes the Bay as a 

"natural resource of national significance." For example, since Maryland's signed agreement 

with USDA and partners in 1997, 100% of their funding was directed to the Chesapeake Bay. 

According to Maryland's CREP Annual Report, CREP has achieved estimated reduction of 

4,000 tons N, 400 tons P and control of over 145,000 tons of sediment in Maryland. $200 

million is expected over the life of the contracts that are enrolled. If federal agencies are 

committed towards “more effective access” to assistance programs to implement Tributary 

Strategies, it helps if program mandates (which can be legislatively or administratively 

established) include language that highlights the significance of the Chesapeake Bay 

watershed as a national treasure. 

• Federal agencies do not always have discretionary authority over funds. An example is 

the U.S Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). USACE does not have discretionary authority 

over unbudgeted funds. The majority of USACE funds for the Chesapeake Bay are provided 

by Congress and directed for specific activities that are above that identified in the 
8

President's budget. Upon receiving Congressional direction and appropriations, USACE 

further determines or verifies that there is federal interest in the project and then proceeds 

with making its recommendations for efforts that improve the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. 

• Obtaining funds to preserve water quality for local governments, watershed 

associations and landowners is often a capacity issue rather than an access issue. 

Federal agencies working to establish Chesapeake NEMO (Network for Education of 

Municipal Officials) have found that many municipalities lack the time and staff to develop 

quality projects and the capacity to follow them through the funding requirements. NEMO 

can provide education, technical assistance and financial coordination assistance to increase 

the capacity of local governments and watershed organizations implement sound land use 

planning and watershed protection. By supporting NEMO, federal program managers will 

enable these communities to have better access to their funding programs. 

• Projects are ranked higher for financing if there is a need to meet legal requirements. 

The priority systems in the CWSRF rank a project higher if it is needed to meet permit 

requirements. The higher a project is on a priority list, the more likely it will receive 

funding. In Maryland and Virginia, where permits were amended to include nutrient limits 

based on the new Chesapeake Bay water quality standards, demand for loans soared for SFY 

2007. Furthermore, a community is more likely to seek loans from the Clean Water State 

Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program, for example, if there is a nutrient limit in its permit 

and/or an enforcement action driving the treatment plant upgrades. 

• Federal Agencies administer voluntary programs that provide funds towards 

improving water quality, but varied priorities spread funds in different directions. For 

example, the primary concern of the Chesapeake Bay watershed is the removal of nutrient 

and sediments in order to improve water quality. However, in EPA Region III, the primary 

causes of nonpoint source stream impairments are split among mining and agriculture and 

stormwater runoff from urbanizing areas. Priority is placed on controlling pollutants to 

restore local waters, such as metals from mining and bacteria from agriculture and 

malfunctioning septic systems. There are, however, many areas where correcting local water 

quality problems also reduces nutrient and sediment going to the Bay, such as correcting 

streambank erosion in agricultural and urban areas. Greater effort is needed to map and fund 

those projects that provide both local and Bay benefits. 

• USDA information cannot be incorporated into the watershed planning and 

implementation tracking systems for Clean Water Act (CWA) section 319. Currently, 

NRCS reporting databases are limited to reporting on a county or 8-digit HUC scale. 

Watershed plan implementation and TMDL allocations are developed at smaller scales 

(approximately 14-16 digit HUC scale). Sharing and collecting implementation data is 

needed at a scale that can be captured and assigned towards implementation of watershed 

based plans. 

Interagency Opportunities 

The following list is comprised of opportunities identified by program managers that assist in the 

pursuit of making federal dollars more accessible for state tributary strategy implementation. 

This is not an all inclusive list but the commencement of increased coordination between the 

federal assistance programs and the states who are responsible for the implementation the 

necessary nutrient and sediment reductions needed to meet water quality standards. 

• CWSRF can pay for nonpoint source projects with community support. Historically, the 

Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) has mainly financed infrastructure projects 

related to waste water treatment. EPA Region III encourages states to adopt a Sponsorship 
9

Program similar to one currently working in the state of Ohio, which provides an opportunity 

to fund non point source projects. With the Sponsorship Program, the state CWSRF gives a 

loan to a community that will cover the costs of the community’s planned wastewater 

treatment plant project and the costs of a nonpoint source project. The community gives (as 

a grant) the funds to a nonprofit group or a farmer to build the nonpoint source project. The 

community repays the full amount of the loan over the negotiated repayment period, usually 

20 years. The community is willing to sponsor the NPS project because the state CWSRF 

reduces the interest rate on the loan so that the total amount to be repaid (principal and 

interest) is the same or less than if the community only borrowed what it needed for the 

wastewater treatment project. 

• Federal and state agencies need capable entities to act as intermediaries for the 

management of funds. For example, CWSRF programs are structured to manage multimillion dollar point source projects but only a limited number of projects each year. Some 

states are not equipped to manage the universe of nonpoint source projects which generally 

involve much smaller dollar amounts for each project but many more loans each year. 

Intermediaries such as Farm Credit Banks have made it possible for Virginia and Maryland 

CWSRF programs to provide loans to farmers for agriculture best management practices to 

implement their nutrient management plans. Since establishing agreements between the 

CWSRF programs and Farm Credit Banks there have been over 250 loans to farmers to 

implement agricultural BMPs through FY2006. 

• Initiatives that are endorsed by the Executive Council, such as the recently signed 

"Manure Strategy" encourage multiple organizations to work together to increase 

access to federal funding. In response to the interagency Chesapeake Bay Program action 

plan to improve management of animal manure in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, USDA 

NRCS in Maryland is partnering with the Chesapeake Bay Program, the University of 

Maryland and others to pilot a multi-faceted approach to expand the implementation of dairy 

feed management by agricultural producers in the state. The pilot, part of NRCS' 2007 

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) in Maryland, includes incentive payments 

to producers, a certification program for feed management specialists, and an education and 

outreach program. By reducing the amount of nutrients fed to dairy cows, feed management 

can in turn reduce the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus applied to cropland. 

• Section 510 Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection Authority has 

discretionary potential. When funds are added to the Section 510 Program, Congress can 

direct activities or allow USACE to apply the funds to design and construct priority projects 

coordinated with the States of MD, VA, and PA. Program authorization limits are currently 

at $10M. Projects completed or ongoing will utilize the $10M. These projects include 

wastewater treatment plant upgrades, shoreline protection and stabilization, wetland 

restoration, trash reduction, oyster restoration, and the non-native oyster EIS. It is 

anticipated that the funding authorization limits will be exceeded by projects already 

underway. States have identified projects for the Section 510 Program that well-exceed the 

program limit. Future funding and higher authorization limits are needed for USACE to be 

able to continue to support the Chesapeake Bay Program restoration using this design and 

construction authority. 

• Technical assistance programs provide accessibility by building capacity. Conservation 

programs, such as those administered by NRCS, provide technical assistance to communities 

throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed. USDA works through an established partnership 

with state departments of agriculture and local conservation districts to provide assistance to 

landowners via the Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA) program, through a national 

network of locally respected, technically skilled, professional conservationists. These 

conservationists deliver consistent, science-based, site-specific solutions to help private 
10

landowners voluntarily conserve, maintain, and improve the Nation's natural resource base. 

Landowners in the Chesapeake Bay watershed access USDA programs through local USDA 

service centers, located in most counties across all six states. In FY 2005, NRCS spent an 

estimated $40 million in CTA funds to assist producers and other private landowners in the 

Chesapeake Bay watershed. This type of program fills in a great need to landowners to 

obtain skills needed for conservation measures and should be recognized. 

• Leveraging through the bond market helps finance upgrades. The CWSRF programs 

allow states to leverage its grant dollars by selling bonds. This process allows states to 

double (or more) the amount of money available in the fund in any given year. For example, 

in FY 2007 Virginia plans to leverage its expected federal grant of approximately $13 million 

to raise over $300 million for point source projects. Some of these projects are in the Bay 

watershed and are for BNR and ENR upgrades. 

• Federal collaboration on social marketing approaches could increase access by reaching 

small watershed organizations and communities. In order to restore streams lakes and 

rivers, a concentrated targeted effort is needed to implement the necessary BMP's to achieve 

the necessary load reductions. For example TMDL's often call for 90 to 100% reductions in 

pollutants to achieve water quality goals. Current participation rates in many of our small 

watershed efforts are reaching approximately 50 - 60 percent. Social marketing approaches 

are necessary in order to understand the barriers to BMP implementation and our approach to 

delivering volunteer programs may need to be modified. 

• State program management meetings help to identify opportunities for accessing funds. 

In Region III, CWSRF state program managers meet for two days each year to share and 

discuss problems, challenges, opportunities and successes. In 2006, the agenda included the 

mission and goals of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Assistance Network. This established 

forum is perfect for identifying and addressing barriers to reaching the Chesapeake Bay goals 

in the CWSRF program. In addition, EPA conducts an annual review of each state’s 

program. This review usually includes a three-day visit to the state offices which include 

meetings to discuss specific barriers and opportunities applicable to each state’s CWSRF 

program. 

• Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) participation in Water Quality Trading 

credits can provide improved access. Treatment plants can obtain loans to reduce their 

nutrient discharges beyond their permit limits, creating a trading credit. A farmer can obtain 

a loan for the construction of a BMP which could create a credit. A treatment plant could use 

a CWSRF loan to install a BMP on a farm which generates a credit the treatment plant can 

use to meet its permit requirements. 

• Opportunities for Chesapeake Bay restoration exist in mitigation and stewardship 

opportunities associated with the Federal aid highway projects administered by FHWA 

through the State highway agencies. Through the planning process, the transportation 

community has the ability to help expand local and state natural resource inventory tools and 

incorporate them into the project planning process, offering enhanced abilities to more 

efficiently align resource preservation tools and project stewardship and mitigation efforts. 

• Providing more effective access is possible through targeting use of funds. The 

development of standard operating procedures that outline the variety of coordination 

activities between federal agencies and within an agency with programmatic missions of 

nutrient and sediment removal can provide a more effective use of funds. For example, the 

EPA Region III Clean Water Act funding programs (CWSRF, section 319 and section 117) 

are engaging in activities to meet cross-programmatic strategic targets. These activities 

include, but are not limited to: coordination between grant project officers, accounting for the 

CB Federal Spending Inventory, development of GIS maps and data showing distribution of 

each programs targeted watersheds/waterbodies, and the creation of a cross-programmatic 
11

logic model detailing the inputs (technical/financial assistance), outputs (BMP 

implementation) and outcomes (environmental results) related to pollution reduction and 

resource preservation activities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. This kind of networking is 

also possible among agencies – for example, EPA and several other agencies pool grant 

funds which are administered by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. 

• Potential exists for CBP to engage NEAFW to directed funds towards conservation 

actions in the CB Watershed: The Northeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

(NEAFWA) is developing a collaborative project where conservation actions that are deemed 

regional priorities and benefit multiple States will be funded through pooling of State 

apportioned State Wildlife Grant dollars, administered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Five of the NEAFWA are contained within the Bay watershed. Potential exists for funding 

to be directed towards conservation actions consistent with the Chesapeake Bay Program 

Strategic Implementation Plans for Pillar One: Restoring Healthy Waters” and Pillar Two: 

“Restoring Healthy Habitats.” Funding could be directed to local entities through sub-grants 

or other agreements. 

Main Document 

The main section of this document contains basic information on federal grants, cost sharing and 

technical assist programs and answers to interview questions that already target or have the 

potential to target funds towards the implementation of nutrient and sediment reductions as 

outlined in state tributary strategies. Each program contains the following: Section I: Program 

Overview, including contact information, description and history of program; Section II: 

Funding Availability, including when funding is available, amount available, cost share 

requirements and criteria; Section III: Funding Distribution Question and Answer including how 

money is distributed at the national level; and Section IV: Interviews Specific to State Tributary 

Strategies, including ideas and opportunities for leveraging fund (where information was 

available). The interview questions and follow up discussions lead to the findings made above. 

This document also contains several background materials, as mentioned throughout the 

document, in the Appendices as follows: 

Appendix A: Directive No. 04-2 Meeting the Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Goals –Next Steps 

Appendix B: The Resolution to Enhance Federal Cooperation and Coordination 

Appendix C: FY’05 Federal Spending Inventory 

Appendix D: Chesapeake 2000 Keystone Commitments (Pillars) 

Appendix E: Funding By Keystone Commitment 

Appendix F: Executive Committee Backgrounder: Federal Advisory Committee Tributary 

Strategy 

Next Steps 

This first phase of the Network activities has involved the synthesis of information from federal 

programs. These materials have aided the FAC in assessing funding programs and in developing 

ideas to improve the accessibility of federal assistance programs. 

The Chesapeake Bay Program is currently in the process of improving its plans for implementing 

pollution reductions and habitat restoration, in accordance with the Program’s water quality and 

aquatic habitat goals and the state tributary strategies. As part of this planning process, the Bay 

Program partners will be reassessing the various sources of funding to achieve these restoration 

actions. 
12

This report will be presented to the Chesapeake Bay Program’s Principals Staff Committee on 

May 23, 2007, and the federal agencies administering the programs will make themselves 

available to discuss the issues and opportunities with Bay Program partners. 

Most of the federal assistance programs are administered through state offices or in close 

cooperation with the states. Therefore, during its next phase, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed 

Assistance Network will consider how best to take advantage of the opportunities highlighted 

here. 

Conclusions 

The Chesapeake Bay Program Federal Agencies Committee (FAC) was challenged with the task 

of assessing funding sources and increasing the accessibility to programs that fund state tributary 

strategies. The FAC worked cooperatively with the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Assistance 

Network to provide program funding information. Concurrently, federal leaders have been 

working together to develop strategic measures, based on the Chesapeake 2000 keystone 

commitments, that would enhance cooperation and strengthen the effectiveness of the available 

federal assistance programs. The findings listed above, will be used to continue cooperation and 

improve accessibility of federal funds. 
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Assistance Network Mission Statement 

Mission, Goals and Desired Results 

In January 2005, the Chesapeake Executive Council (CEC) issued Directive 04-2, “Meeting the 

Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Goals - Next Steps.” The Directive outlined measures to 

accelerate implementation of the tributary strategies developed by the Chesapeake Bay Program 

partners, and restore water quality in the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries. Funding for 

tributary strategy implementation is a key issue, and a number of federal and state financial and 

related technical assistance programs can help. The Council directed the Chesapeake Bay 

Program to create a network of assistance programs “to establish a better mutual understanding 

of how existing financing programs operate, explore possibilities for greater effectiveness, and 

consider ways to improve financing of tributary strategy implementation.” The Directive 

specified that the Network should include “representatives from the Clean Water Act State 

Revolving Loan Fund programs throughout the watershed, USDA officials responsible for Farm 

Bill assistance to Bay watershed farmers for conservation and nutrient-sediment best 

management practices, and other relevant financial assistance entities.” Finally, the Directive 

asked for specific attention to “co-funding” programs and to an analytical basis for identifying 

“hardship communities” requiring grant assistance to meet tributary strategy requirements. In 

response to this mandate, federal and state agency representatives have come together to form 

the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Assistance Network, begin the sharing of information, and 

prepare this statement of mission, goals and desired results. 

MISSION: To secure substantial and sustainable funding for the implementation of the 

Chesapeake Bay watershed tributary strategies. 

GOALS: 

1. Establish a voluntary Chesapeake Bay Watershed Assistance Network. 

2. Establish a better mutual understanding of how existing financing programs operate. 

3. Explore possibilities for greater effectiveness in financing programs. 

4. Consider ways to improve financing of tributary strategy implementation. 

5. Create an awareness among Network members of how “hardship communities” have 

been identified. These are communities that would require grant assistance to meet 

tributary strategy requirements. 

6. Jurisdictions will consider analyzing “co-funding” as it could apply to their states. 

DESIRED RESULTS: 

1. Strong and inclusive Chesapeake Bay Watershed Assistance Network is established. 

2. Network members become proficient in their knowledge of and ability to access funding 

sources. 

3. Greater financing effectiveness is achieved. 

4. Improvements are made that accelerate financing tributary strategy implementation. 

5. Information regarding “hardship communities” is shared among jurisdictions as available. 

6. Identification of possible jurisdictional applications for “co-funding.” 

13
14

Federal Programs Descriptions and Interviews
 

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Service (FSA) 

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)/Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) 

Section I: Program Overview

Funding Program Name: Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)/Conservation Reserve 

Enhancement Program (CREP) 

Agency: United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

Division: Farm Service Agency (FSA) - Maryland 

Contact information: Bebe Shortall 410-381-4550, ext. 110 

More information can be found at: 

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=landing&topic=landing

Established: CRP-1985, CREP-1997 

Description: CRP - The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is a voluntary program for 

agricultural landowners. Through CRP, agricultural producers and landowners can receive 

annual rental payments and cost-share assistance to establish long-term, resource conserving 

covers on eligible farmland. 

 

The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) makes annual rental payments based on the 

agriculture rental value of the land, and it provides cost-share assistance for up to 50 percent of 

the participant's costs in establishing approved conservation practices. Participants enroll in CRP 

contracts for 10 to 15 years. 

CRP protects millions of acres of American topsoil from erosion and is designed to safeguard the 

Nation's natural resources. By reducing water runoff and sedimentation, CRP protects 

groundwater and helps improve the condition of lakes, rivers, ponds, and streams. Acreage 

enrolled in the CRP is planted to resource-conserving vegetative covers, making the program a 

major contributor to increased wildlife populations 

There are 2 types of CRP Signups - . CRP General Sign-up-Producers can offer land for CRP 

general sign-up enrollment only during designated sign-up periods. CRP Continuous Sign-upEnvironmentally desirable land devoted to certain conservation practices may be enrolled at any 

time under CRP continuous sign-up. Certain eligibility requirements still apply, but offers are not 

subject to competitive bidding. 

CREP – The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) is a Memorandum of 

Agreement between USDA, CCC, and the State of Maryland to implement a component of 

CRP for certain purposes in the vicinity of the Chesapeake Bay under the Conservation 

Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). 

The intended outcome is to allow, where deemed desirable by USDA, CCC, and Maryland, 

certain acreage to be enrolled under the CREP. The Chesapeake Bay is a natural resource of 

national significance which is recognized by the Conservation Reserve Program, (CRP), 

authorizing legislation as an area of special environmental sensitivity. The Chesapeake Bay was 

15
16

previously designated a CRP national conservation priority area making all cropland within that 

area basically eligible for enrollment. 

USDA, CCC, and Maryland, in cooperation with other Federal, State, and local authorities, seek 

to take actions that will help reduce the occurrence of runoff, sediment, and nutrients in the 

Chesapeake Bay and which will promote enhanced wildlife habitats. 

Section II: Funding Availability 

When is funding Available? 

MD: Funding is available through the current Farm Bill 

Who is eligible? Eligible Producers - To be eligible for CRP enrollment, a producer must have 

owned or operated the land for at least 12 months prior to close of the CRP sign-up period. 

Eligible Land - To be eligible for placement in CRP, land must be either: 

 

Cropland (including field margins) that is planted or considered planted to an agricultural 

commodity 4 of the previous 6 crop years from 1996 to 2001, and which is physically and legally 

capable of being planted in a normal manner to an agricultural commodity; or 

Certain marginal pastureland that is suitable for use as a riparian buffer or for similar water 

quality purposes. 

 

Amount of Assistance provided in past three years to CB watershed per state (See 

Appendix C, Federal Spending Inventory)? 

FY’05: $42,000,000 

FY’04: $59,000,000

Cost Share Requirements: CRP Payments - FSA provides CRP participants with annual rental 

payments, including certain incentive payments, and cost-share assistance: 

Rental Payments - In return for establishing long-term, resource-conserving covers, FSA 

provides annual rental payments to participants. FSA bases rental rates on the relative 

productivity of the soils within each county and the average dry land cash rent or cash-rent 

equivalent. The maximum CRP rental rate for each offer is calculated in advance of enrollment. 

Producers may offer land at that rate or offer a lower rental rate to increase the likelihood that 

their offer will be accepted. 

Maintenance Incentive Payments - CRP annual rental payments may include an additional 

amount up to $5 per acre per year as an incentive to perform certain maintenance obligations. 

Cost-share Assistance - FSA provides cost-share assistance to participants who establish 

approved cover on eligible cropland. The cost-share assistance can be an amount not more than 

50 percent of the participants' costs in establishing approved practices. 

Other Incentives - FSA may offer additional financial incentives of up to 20 percent of the 

annual payment for certain continuous sign-up practices. 

CREP Payments - CCC shall pay CREP participants 50.0 percent of the reimbursable costs of 

establishing eligible conservation practices as provided in Handbook 2-CRP. Reimbursable 

costs paid to the eligible producer, from all sources, shall not exceed 100 percent of the 

producer’s eligible out-of-pocket expenses. 
17

Incentive payments, made as part of the annual rental payment, will be made by CCC, in 

addition to CRP maximum annual cropland-based soil rental rate (SRR) applicable to the soil 

types to be enrolled in the CREP, in amounts as follows: 

(1) For land to be enrolled under practice CP22 (Riparian Buffers): 

1.$200/ac for the first 50 feet of buffer 

2. $50/ac for 51st-100th foot of buffer 

3. $0/ac beyond 100th foot of buffer 

 

(2) For land to be enrolled as a buffer measure under practice CP4D (Permanent Wildlife 

Habitat), CP21 (Filter Strips), CP29 (Marginal Pastureland Wildlife Habitat Buffers), or 

CP30 (Marginal Pastureland Wetland Buffers): 

1. $150/ac for the first 50 feet of buffer 

2. $50/ac for 51st-100th foot of buffer 

3. $0/ac beyond 100th foot of buffer 

(3) For land to be enrolled under practice CP23 (Wetland Restoration) or CP9 (Shallow Water 

Areas for Wildlife) and, CP1, CP2, CP3, CP3A, CP4D determined as Highly Erodible Land 

(HEL), or CP25 (Habitat for Declining Species) 

 $50/ac 

Authority: CRP provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended (1985 Act) (16 U.S.C. 

3830 et seq.), and the CRP regulations at 7 CFR part 1410. Enrollments in the CRP are 

authorized in current law through December 31, 2007. 

Funding criteria/rating system: Offers for CRP contracts are ranked according to the 

Environmental Benefits Index (EBI). FSA collects data for each of the EBI factors based on the 

relative environmental benefits for the land offered. Each eligible offer is ranked in comparison 

to all other offers and selections made from that ranking. FSA uses the following EBI factors to 

assess the environmental benefits for the land offered: 

 

Wildlife habitat benefits resulting from covers on contract acreage; 

Water quality benefits from reduced erosion, runoff, and leaching; 

On-farm benefits from reduced erosion; 

Benefits that will likely endure beyond the contract period; 

Air quality benefits from reduced wind erosion; and 

Cost. 

CREP offers are not ranked. Offers are approved if all eligibility requirements are met. 

______________________________________________________________________ 

Section III: Funding Distribution Question and Answer 

How do the HQ offices (Washington DC) determine the distribution of funds among the 

Regional offices? No distribution 

How much discretion do regional offices/lead agencies have in the distribution of funds to 

states, localities or watershed organizations? N/A 

How are priorities set for the distribution of funds in regional/lead offices? Is their a 

formula for how it is distributed? Is there a priorities list of objectives or projects targeted? 

N/A
18

Is their a guidance document that guide applicants that is provided? If so, how often is it 

published and who is responsible for distribution and content? N/A 

If not how do applicants get word of what is available and for what purpose? 

How are selections made? 

Are their regional or geographic areas that are targeted? If not, why? 

What was the distribution of funds last year (who got the money by sector)? 

Is it possible to determine watershed areas that were targeted? 

What type of environmental results (outcomes) are included in award documents? 

CREP, taking into account previous enrollments, will seek to achieve the following 

environmental objectives: 

1. Reduction of nutrient pollution from agricultural lands of approximately 5,750 

 tons of nitrogen and 550 tons of phosphorus on an annual basis. 

2. Reduction of sediment loading into streams from agricultural lands of 

 approximately 200,000 tons of sediment on an annual basis. 

3. Increase the survivability, distribution, and abundance of targeted fish, wildlife 

and plant species in the Chesapeake region by establishing or enhancing 93,000 

acres of riparian habitat, 5,000 acres of wetland habitat and 2000 acres of habitat 

for declining species. Emphasis will be given to high priority species listed under 

the North American Waterfowl Plan and State and Federally-listed threatened or 

endangered species, such as bald eagles, Eastern bog turtle, dwarf wedge mussel, 

glassy darter and harparella. 
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (FS) 

Chesapeake Watershed Forestry Program 

Section I: Program Overview

Funding Program Name: Chesapeake Watershed Forestry Program 

Agency: USDA Forest Service 

Division: Northeastern Area 

Contact information: Sally Claggett 410-267-5706 

Established: 1991

Description: Through its Chesapeake Watershed Forestry program, the Forest Service provides 

forestry leadership, and facilitates the activities of the Forestry Workgroup (FWG) in order to 1) 

create a regional model for linking forest conservation, restoration, and stewardship to watershed 

health while sustaining working landscapes; 2) find solutions to watershed and forestry issues by 

serving as a catalyst for action; 3) bring science, technical, and financial assistance together to 

meet Chesapeake Bay goals; and 4) build new partnerships for regional forest stewardship. 

From 1997-2007, Congress earmarked funds for this program, often above the President’s budget 

request. These funds support an office, Forest Service staff support for the Bay restoration 

effort, grants oversight and management, cooperative projects and initiatives with Bay states, 

grants to non-profits and communities, and the conduct of studies, education, and outreach. 

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Forestry Program Appropriations 

($ in thousands)

FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07

150 227 250 250 250 500 500 494 994 988 950 945 1000 

All funding comes through State and Private Forestry and is designed to get federal forestry 

funds to state forestry programs. All money is obligated to addressing the area of overlap 

between Chesapeake Bay goals and forestry issues. Non state projects become funded as 

determined by the FWG. 

Section II: Funding Availability 

When is funding Available? September

Who is eligible? After administrative work is funded and any special projects decided upon by 

the FWG, the remaining funds are provided directly to states or local communities through 

grants and cooperative agreements. Since 2003, the majority of these funds have also been used 

to support grants to non-profit and local partners through the Chesapeake Small Watershed 

Grants Program managed by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. 

Amount of Assistance provided for FY06 in MD, PA, VA, DC, DE, WV, NY CB 

Watershed? Approximately $700,000 total-- most is directed to state forestry agencies. 

19
20

Amount of Assistance provided in past three years to CB watershed per state? 

Amounts given in thousand’s. 

DC DE MD NY PA VA WV Overall

2004 30 0 69 15 60 115 50 350 

2005 0 25 125 15 85 91 50 411 

2006 0 0 157 15 21 115 0 387 

CBP 2005 Federal Spending Inventory (see Appendix C): Above included in a portion of the 

Inventory. 

Cost Share Requirements: 50% non-federal match 

Authority: Forest Cooperative Assistance Act and the 2002 Farm Bill 

Funding criteria/rating system: Projects are funded primarily according to actions listed in the 

Chesapeake Watershed Forestry Strategic Action Plan 2004-2008. The Action Plan was set in 

motion by a regional team of high level state and federal forestry professionals. There are 5 

primary work areas outlined in the Action Plan: 1) Partnerships, 2) Information and Outreach, 3) 

Healthy Forest Land Base, 4) Riparian Forest Buffers, and 5) Urban Forestry. 

Section III: Funding Distribution Question and Answer 

How do the HQ offices (Washington DC) determine the distribution of funds among the 

Regional offices? NA 

How much discretion do regional offices/lead agencies have in the distribution of funds to 

states, localities or watershed organizations? These funds are at the full discretion of the 

FWG. Funds are designated to do watershed forestry projects to help the water quality of the 

Chesapeake. 

How are priorities set for the distribution of funds in regional/lead offices? Is their a 

formula for how it is distributed? Is there a priorities list of objectives or projects targeted? 

We tier to the Action Plan. 

Is their a guidance document that guide applicants that is provided? No. If so, how often 

is it published and who is responsible for distribution and content? 

If not, how do applicants get word of what is available and for what purpose? Non-state 

groups wishing to have a project funded must work directly with state or federal contacts on the 

FWG. Often, these groups will be sought out initially by the FWG. 

How are selections made? State and federal representatives on the FWG make the final 

approval. 

Are their regional or geographic areas that are targeted? If not, why? Some watersheds are 

targeted in the Strategic Action Plan. 

What was the distribution of funds last year (who got the money by sector)? N/A 

Is it possible to determine watershed areas that were targeted? Lower Susquehanna, 

Potomac, and Rappahannock were targeted. 
21

What type of environmental results (outcomes) are included in award documents? 

Projects must be designed to meet one of the objectives in the Action Plan, or help meet one of 

our tracked performance measures which are: 1) acres of forest land protected from 

development, 2) miles of streambanks and shorelines restored to riparian forests, 3) percentage 

of riparian forest buffers protected from development, and 4) number of communities that will 

implement Urban Tree Canopy expansion. 

Section IV: Interviews Specific to State Tributary Strategies 

Are you familiar with the state Tributary Strategies developed to target implementation of 

nutrient and sediment reductions for improved water quality? 

Yes, this is accounted for. 

How can your program guidance/rules be improved to better focus on tributary strategies? 

While there is always room for improvement, this is already the focus of our program/guidance. 

How can states and local stakeholders improve ability to compete with others to increase 

the % of funds being awarded to tributary strategy implementation? Headwater states could 

be more active in the FWG. 

Are there examples of using these funds to help access additional funding (leveraging)? 

Yes, through the Small Watershed Grants Program. Also, several separate grant programs are 

offspring of our Action Plan such as Community Greening by Chesapeake Bay Trust and another 

urban forestry one is being developed for NE Pennsylvania. 
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 

Agricultural Management Assistance (AMA) 

Section I: Program Overview

Funding Program Name: Agricultural Management Assistance (AMA)

Agency: USDA NRCS 

Division: 

Contact information: Landowners can contact their local USDA Service Center for 

information about enrolling in the program. Contact information for USDA Service Centers is 

available at http://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app

Established: Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000

Description: Agricultural Management Assistance (AMA) provides cost share assistance to 

agricultural producers to voluntarily address issues such as water management, water quality, 

and erosion control by incorporating conservation into their farming operations. Producers may 

construct or improve water management structures or irrigation structures; plant trees for 

windbreaks or to improve water quality; and mitigate risk through production diversification or 

resource conservation practices, including soil erosion control, integrated pest management, or 

transition to organic farming. 

Section II: Funding Availability 

When is funding Available? NRCS announces funding availability each year. The timing is 

variable and contingent upon Congressional appropriations. However, landowners may submit 

an AMA application at any time during the year. 

Who is eligible? AMA is available in 15 states where participation in the Federal Crop 

Insurance Program is historically low. AMA is available in the following Chesapeake Bay 

watershed states: Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.

Applicants must own or control the land and agree to implement specific eligible conservation 

practices. Applicants must also meet the Food Security Act’s definition of "person." Eligible 

land includes cropland, hayland, pasture and rangeland, land used for subsistence purposes, and 

other land (such as forestland) that produces crops or livestock where risk may be mitigated 

through operation diversification or change in resource conservation practices.

 

Amount of Assistance provided for FY06 in MD, PA, VA, DC, DE, WV, and NY? 

$3,011,635 (This figure is all States totaled, not CB watershed-specific.) 

Amount of Assistance provided in past three years to CB watershed per state? 

Totals for CB watershed States: 2005--$5,157,449 

 2004--$5,293,810 

 2003--$298,700 

CBP 2005 Federal Spending Inventory (see Appendix C): $3,070,915 indirect spending. 

22
23

Cost Share Requirements: The Federal cost-share rate is 75 percent of the cost of an eligible 

practice, based on the percent of actual cost, or percent of actual cost with not-to-exceed limits, 

or flat rates. 

Participants are paid based upon certification and verification of completion of the approved 

practice. 

Incentive payments may be made to encourage a producer to perform land management 

practices, such as nutrient management, manure management, integrated pest management, 

irrigation water management and wildlife habitat management. 

Authority: Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 and amended in the 2002 Farm Bill. 

Funding criteria/rating system: Applications are ranked according to criteria developed at the 

State or local level. These criteria may be obtained by contacting the NRCS Maryland State 

Office (410-757-0861).

NRCS Partners: State Departments of Agriculture, Conservation Districts. 

National AMA Website: www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/ama
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 

Conservation Innovation Grants 

Section I: Program Overview: 

Funding Program Name: Conservation Innovation Grants (a component of the Environmental 

Quality Incentives Program)

Agency: USDA NRCS 

Division: 

Contact information: Tessa Chadwick, NRCS National Headquarters 

 202-720-2335 

Established: 2002 Farm Bill 

Overview of program: 

Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG) was authorized as part of the Environmental Quality 

Incentives Program (EQIP) in the 2002 Farm Bill. CIG is a voluntary program intended to 

stimulate the development and adoption of innovative conservation approaches and technologies 

while leveraging Federal investment in environmental enhancement and protection, in 

conjunction with agricultural production. Under CIG, EQIP funds are used to award competitive 

grants to non-Federal governmental or non-governmental organizations, Tribes, or individuals. 

CIG enables NRCS to work with other public and private entities to accelerate technology 

transfer and adoption of promising technologies and approaches to address some of the Nation's 

most pressing natural resource concerns. CIG benefits agricultural producers by providing more 

options for environmental enhancement and compliance with Federal, State, and local 

regulations. National and State-level (in select States) competitions are offered each fiscal year. 

Beginning in fiscal year 2005, a Chesapeake Bay watershed component was added to CIG. In 

both FY 2005 and 2006, up to $5 million was available for projects in the Bay watershed. In 

addition, Pennsylvania administered a separate State-level competition in FY 2006. 

Section II: Funding Availability 

When is funding Available? 

NRCS announces funding availability each year. The timing is variable and contingent upon 

Congressional appropriations. Availability of funds is announced on the Grants.gov federal 

grants portal, as well as on the NRCS website. 

Who is eligible? 

CIG applications will be accepted from State or local units of government, Federally recognized 

Tribes, non-governmental organizations, and individuals. Applications 

are accepted from all 50 States, the Caribbean Area (Puerto Rico and the Virgin 

Islands), and the Pacific Basin Area (Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of 

the Northern Mariana Islands). Proposed projects must involve EQIP-eligible producers. 

Amount of Assistance provided for FY06 in MD, PA, VA, DC, DE, WV, NY (CB 

Watershed)? $4.1 million

Amount of Assistance provided in past three years to CB watershed per state? 

FY 2005--$4.25 million 

24
25

CBP 2005 Federal Spending Inventory (see Appendix C): $4,500,000 included in direct 

spending. 

 

Cost Share Requirements: 

CIG applicants may request no more than 50% of the total project cost. 

Authority: Authorized in the 2002 Farm Bill 

Funding criteria/rating system: 

Applications are ranked by peer reviewers according to criteria published in the annual funding 

announcement. 
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 

Conservation Security Program (CSP) 

Section I: Program Overview

Funding Program Name: Conservation Security Program (CSP)

Agency: USDA NRCS 

Contact information: Landowners can contact their local USDA Service Center for information 

about enrolling in CSP. Contact information for USDA Service Centers is available at

http://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app

Established: Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (Farm Bill) of 2002.

Description: The Conservation Security Program (CSP) is a voluntary conservation program 

that supports ongoing stewardship of private agricultural lands by providing payments for 

maintaining and enhancing natural resources. CSP identifies and rewards those farmers and 

ranchers who are meeting the highest standards of conservation and environmental management 

on their operations. 

CSP provides financial and technical assistance to promote the conservation and improvement of 

soil, water, air, energy, plant and animal life, and other conservation purposes on Tribal and 

private working lands. Working lands include cropland, grassland, prairie land, improved 

pasture, and range land, as well as forested land that is an incidental part of an agriculture 

operation.

Section II: Funding Availability 

When is funding Available? NRCS announces a CSP signup once each fiscal year. The timing 

is variable and contingent upon Congressional appropriations. 

Who is eligible? CSP is implemented in select watersheds throughout the nation each year. 

Producers in participating watershed must meet the basic CSP eligibility criteria:

• The land must be privately owned or Tribal land and the majority of the land must be located 

within one of the selected watersheds. 

• The applicant must be in compliance with highly erodible and wetland provisions of 

the Food Security Act of 1985, have an active interest in the agricultural operation, and have 

control of the land for the life of the contract. 

• The applicant must share in the risk of producing any crop or livestock and be entitled to a 

share in the crop or livestock marketed from the operation. 

Amount of Assistance provided for FY06 in MD, PA, VA, DC, DE, WV, NY (CB 

Watershed)? $5,263,814 (State totals, not CB watershed-specific) 

 

Amount of Assistance provided in past three years to CB watershed per state? 

Totals for CB watershed States: 2005--$9,512,872 

 2004--$366,747 

 2003--$0 (no program) 

26
27

CBP 2005 Federal Spending Inventory (see Appendix C): $7,100,788 included in indirect 

spending. 

Cost Share Requirements: CSP contract payments include one or more of the following: 

• An annual stewardship component for the existing base level conservation treatment. 

• An annual existing practice component for the maintenance of existing conservation practices. 

• An enhancement component for exceptional conservation effort and additional conservation 

practices or activities that provide increased resource benefits beyond the prescribed level. 

• A one-time new practice component for additional needed practices. 

Total payments are determined by the tier of participation, conservation treatments 

completed, and the acres enrolled: 

• For Tier I, contracts are for 5 years; maximum payment is $20,000 annually. 

• For Tier II, contracts are for 5 to 10 years; maximum payment is $35,000 annually. 

• For Tier III, contracts are for 5 to 10 years; maximum payment is $45,000 annually. 

Authority: Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (Farm Bill) of 2002. 

Funding criteria/rating system: Applications are ranked and contracts awarded by NRCS 

National Headquarters. 

NRCS Partners: State Departments of Agriculture, Conservation Districts. 

National CSP Website: www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/csp
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 

Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA) 

Section I: Program Overview

Funding Program Name: Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA)

Agency: USDA NRCS 

Contact information: Landowners can contact their local USDA Service Center to request 

assistance through CTA. Contact information for USDA Service Centers is available at

http://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app

Established: Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1935.

Description: The Conservation Technical Assistance Program (CTA) is a voluntary program 

that provides technical assistance supported by science-based technology and tools to help 

people conserve, maintain, and improve their natural resources. 

NRCS is the principal USDA agency for providing conservation technical assistance to private 

landowners, conservation districts, tribes, and other organizations through a national network of 

locally respected, technically skilled, professional conservationists. These conservationists 

deliver consistent, science-based, site-specific solutions to help private landowners voluntarily 

conserve, maintain, and improve the Nation's natural resource base. 

The Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA) Program is the foundation of this conservation 

technical assistance and serves to focus on natural resource issues at the local level that are of 

local, State, multi-state, and national concern. The CTA Program works in partnership with 

locally led decision-making processes and other conservation programs to augment the Federal 

investment in order to address national priorities in concert with local and State needs most 

effectively. The CTA Program is the foundation for much of the Nation's private lands and 

Indian lands conservation assistance infrastructure and brings to bear the technical expertise to 

get sound conservation solutions applied on the ground. 

Section II: Funding Availability 

When is funding Available? There is no direct financial assistance available through CTA. 

Landowners may request technical assistance at any time by visiting their local USDA Service 

Center. 

Who is eligible? All owners and managers of private land are eligible to receive technical 

assistance from NRCS. 

Amount of Assistance provided for FY06 in MD, PA, VA, DC, DE, WV, NY (CB 

Watershed)? $42,207,492 (State totals, not CB watershed-specific. These figures are not final.) 

For many years, NRCS has received a$6,000,000 Chesapeake Bay annual earmark through CTA, 

however, because of the congressional continuing resolution of the budget for FY07, it is unclear 

whether these funds will be available. 

 

Amount of Assistance provided in past three years to CB watershed per state? 

Totals for CB watershed States: 2005--$40,496,631 

28

 2004--$44,273,459 
29

 2003--$41,603,900 

CBP 2005 Federal Spending Inventory (see Appendix C): $18,044,830 included as direct and 

indirect spending. 

Cost Share Requirements: N/A 

Authority: Soil Conservation Domestic Act of 1935. 

Funding criteria/rating system: N/A 

NRCS Partners: State Departments of Agriculture, Conservation Districts. 

National CSP Website: www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/cta
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) 

Section I: Program Overview 

Funding Program Name: Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)

Agency: USDA NRCS 

Contact information: Each NRCS State Office has a program manager in charge of EQIP. 

Landowners can contact their local USDA Service Center for information about enrolling in the 

program. Contact information can be found at: http://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app

Established: 1996 Farm Bill 

Description: The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) was reauthorized in the 

Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Farm Bill) to provide a voluntary conservation 

program for farmers and ranchers that promotes agricultural production and environmental 

quality as compatible national goals. EQIP offers financial and technical help to assist eligible 

participants install or implement structural and management practices on eligible agricultural 

land. 

EQIP offers contracts with a minimum term that ends one year after the implementation of the 

last scheduled practices and a maximum term of ten years. These contracts provide incentive 

payments and cost-shares to implement conservation practices. Persons who are engaged in 

livestock or agricultural production on eligible land may participate in the EQIP program. EQIP 

activities are carried out according to an environmental quality incentives program plan of 

operations developed in conjunction with the producer that identifies the appropriate 

conservation practice or practices to address the resource concerns. The practices are subject to 

NRCS technical standards adapted for local conditions. The local conservation district approves 

the plan. 

An individual or entity may not receive, directly or indirectly, cost-share or incentive payments 

that, in the aggregate, exceed $450,000 for all EQIP contracts entered during the term of the 

Farm Bill. 

Section II: Funding Availability 

When is funding Available? NRCS announces funding availability each year. The timing is 

variable and contingent upon Congressional appropriations. Landowners may submit an EQIP 

application at any time during the year. 

Who is eligible? Producers who are engaged in crop or livestock production on eligible land 

are eligible for the program. Eligible land includes cropland, rangeland, pasture, private nonindustrial forestland, and other farm or ranch lands, as determined by the Secretary of 

Agriculture.

Amount of Assistance provided for FY06 in MD, PA, VA, DC, DE, WV, NY (CB 

Watershed)? $31,017,544 (State totals, not CB watershed-specific.)

Amount of Assistance provided in past three years to CB watershed per state? 

30
31

Totals for CB watershed States: 2005--$54,499,193 

 2004--$49,962,864 

 2003--$42,574,276 

Federal Inventory Indirect Spending 2005 (see Appendix C): $30,695,222 included as 

indirect spending. 

Cost Share Requirements: Landowner cost-share varies by State and conservation practice. 

Limited resource or beginning farmers and ranchers are generally eligible for higher cost-share 

rates. 

Authority: Reauthorized in the 2002 Farm Bill 

Funding criteria/rating system: Applications are ranked according to criteria developed at the 

State or local level. These criteria are posted on each NRCS State website.

NRCS Partners: State Departments of Agriculture, Conservation Districts. Some States offer 

co-cost sharing opportunities between EQIP and State/local programs. 
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 

Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP) 

Section I: Program Overview

Funding Program Name: Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP)

Agency: USDA NRCS 

Contact information: Landowners can contact participating land preservation entities or their 

local USDA Service Center for information about enrolling in the program. Contact information 

for USDA Service Centers is available at http://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app

Established: Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act (Farm Bill) of 1996.

Description: The Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP) is a voluntary program 

that helps farmers and ranchers keep their land in agriculture. The program provides matching 

funds to State, Tribal, or local governments and non-governmental organizations with existing 

farm and ranch land protection programs to purchase conservation easements. 

USDA works through State, Tribal, and local governments and non-governmental organizations 

to implement the FRPP. These entities acquire conservation easements from landowners. 

Participating landowners agree not to convert their land to non-agricultural uses and to develop 

and implement a conservation plan for any highly erodible land. All highly erodible lands 

enrolled must have a conservation plan developed based on the standards in the NRCS Field 

Office Technical Guide and approved by the local conservation district. Landowners retain rights 

to use the property for agriculture. 

Section II: Funding Availability 

When is funding Available? NRCS announces funding availability each year through a request 

for proposals (RFP). The timing is variable and contingent upon Congressional appropriations. 

Who is eligible? To qualify for FRPP, the land offered must be part or all of a farm or ranch and 

must: 

• Contain prime, unique, or other productive soil or historical or archaeological 

 resources; 

• Be included in a pending offer from a State, Tribal, or local government or non- 

 governmental organization’s farmland protection program; 

• Be privately owned; 

• Be covered by a conservation plan for any highly erodible land; 

• Be large enough to sustain agricultural production; 

• Be accessible to markets for what the land produces; 

• Be surrounded by parcels of land that can support long-term agricultural production; 

 and 

• Be owned by an individual or entity that does not exceed the Adjusted Gross 

 Income (AGI) limitation.

 

32

Amount of Assistance provided for FY06 in MD, PA, VA, DC, DE, WV, NY (CB 

Watershed)? $13,382, 499 (State totals, not CB watershed-specific. This number is an estimate 

and is not final)
33

Amount of Assistance provided in past three years to CB watershed per state? 

Totals for CB watershed States: 2005--$27,163,885 

 2004--$19,834,269 

 2003--$16,641,294 

Cost Share Requirements: 

The FRPP share of the easement cost must not exceed 50 percent of the appraised fair market 

value of the conservation easement. As part of its share of the cost of purchasing a conservation 

easement, a State, Tribal, or local government or nongovernmental organization may include a 

charitable donation by the landowner of up to 25 percent of the appraised fair market value of the 

conservation easement. As a minimum, a cooperating entity must provide, in cash, 25 percent of 

the appraised fair market value or 

50 percent of the purchase price of the conservation easement.

Authority: Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (Farm Bill) of 2002. 

Funding criteria/rating system: Applications are ranked according to both National and State 

criteria. These criteria are included in the annual request for proposals.

NRCS Partners: State, Tribal, and local governments and non-governmental organizations that 

purchase and administer conservation easements. 

National AMA Website: www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/frpp
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) 

Section I: Program Overview

Funding Program Name: Grassland Reserve Program (GRP)

Agency: USDA NRCS 

Contact information: Landowners can contact their local USDA Service Center for information 

about enrolling in the program. Contact information for USDA Service Centers is available at

http://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app

Established: Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (Farm Bill) of 2002. 

Description: The Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) is a voluntary program that helps 

landowners and operators restore and protect grassland, including rangeland, pastureland, 

shrubland, and certain other lands, while maintaining the areas as grazing lands. The program 

emphasizes support for working grazing operations; enhancement of plant and animal 

biodiversity; and protection of grassland and land containing shrubs and forbs under threat of 

conversion to cropping, urban development, and other activities that threaten grassland 

resources. 

GRP offers several enrollment options, including easements, rental agreements, and restoration 

agreements.

Section II: Funding Availability 

When is funding Available? GRP has exhausted its authorized funding in the 2002 Farm Bill. 

At this time, there is no financial assistance available through GRP. 

Who is eligible? Landowners who can provide clear title on privately owned lands are eligible 

to participate for either easement option. Landowners and others who have general control of the 

acreage may submit an application for a rental agreement. 

There is no national maximum limitation on the amount of land that may be enrolled by a 

participant in the program. However, there is a minimum requirement established in law. 

Offers for enrollment must contain at least 40 contiguous acres, unless special circumstances 

exist to accept a lesser amount. These special circumstances are determined by the NRCS State 

Conservationist. 

Eligible land includes privately owned and Tribal lands, such as grasslands; land that 

contains forbs (including improved rangeland and pastureland or shrubland); or land that is 

located in an area that historically has been dominated by grassland, forbs, or shrubland 

that has the potential to serve as wildlife habitat of significant ecological value. Incidental lands 

may be included to allow for the efficient administration of an agreement or 

easement.

Amount of Assistance provided for FY06 in MD, PA, VA, DC, DE, WV, NY (CB 

Watershed)? $0 (GRP has exhausted its authorized funding in the 2002 Farm Bill)

34

Amount of Assistance provided in past three years to CB watershed per state? 
35

Totals for CB watershed States: 2005--$570,272 

 2004--$1,110,292 

 2003--$1,376,510 

Federal Inventory Spending 2005 (see Appendix C): $2,334,111 included as indirect 

spending. 

Cost Share Requirements: GRP cost-share payments vary by contract type: 

• Permanent Easement. This is a conservation easement in perpetuity. Easement 

payments for this option equal the fair market value, less the grassland value of the 

• land encumbered by the easement. These values will be determined using an 

appraisal. 

• Thirty-year Easement. USDA will provide an easement payment equal to 30 percent 

of: the fair market value of the land, less the grassland value of the land of the land 

encumbered by the easement. For both easement options, USDA will provide all 

administrative costs associated with recording the easement, including appraisal fees, 

survey costs, title insurance, and recording fees. Easement payments may be 

provided, at the participant’s request, in lump sum or annual payments (equal or 

unequal amounts) for up to 10 years. 

• Rental Agreement. Participants may choose a 10-year, 15-year, 20-year, or 30-year 

contract. USDA will provide annual payments in an amount that is not more than 75 

percent of the grazing value of the land covered by the agreement for the life of the 

agreement. Payments will be disbursed on the agreement anniversary date each year. 

• Restoration agreement. An approved grassland resource management plan identifying 

required restoration activities will be incorporated within the rental agreement or 

easement. NRCS may provide up to 90 percent of the restoration costs on lands that 

have never been cultivated, and up to 75 percent of the cost on restored grasslands 

and shrub lands that were previously cropped. Participants will be paid upon 

certification 

of the completion of the approved practice(s). Participants may contribute to the 

application of a cost-share practice through in-kind contributions. The combined total 

cost-share provided by Federal or State Governments may not exceed 100 percent of 

the total actual cost of restoration. 

Authority: Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (Farm Bill) of 2002. 

Funding criteria/rating system: Applications are ranked according to criteria developed at the 

State or local level. These criteria are posted on each NRCS State website.

NRCS Partners: State Departments of Agriculture, Conservation Districts. 

National GRP Website: www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/grp
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 

Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) 

Section I: Program Overview

Funding Program Name: Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP)

Agency: USDA NRCS 

Contact information: Landowners can contact their local USDA Service Center for information 

about enrolling in the program. Contact information for USDA Service Centers is available at

http://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app

Established: Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act (Farm Bill) of 1996. 

Description: The Wetlands Reserve Program is a voluntary program offering landowners the 

opportunity to protect, restore, and enhance wetlands on their property. NRCS provides 

technical and financial support to help landowners with their wetland restoration efforts. NRCS’ 

goal is to achieve the greatest wetland functions and values, along with optimum wildlife habitat, 

on every acre enrolled in the program. This program offers landowners an opportunity to 

establish long-term conservation and wildlife practices and protection. 

WRP is available in all Chesapeake Bay watershed states. There are three program participation 

options: 10-year restoration cost-share agreements, 30-year conservation easements, and 

permanent easements. 

Section II: Funding Availability 

When is funding Available? NRCS announces funding availability each year. The timing is 

variable and contingent upon Congressional appropriations. Landowners may work with their 

local USDA Service Center to develop a WRP application at any time during the year. 

Who is eligible? To offer a conservation easement, the landowner must have owned the land for 

at least 12 months prior to enrolling it in the program, unless the land was inherited, the 

landowner exercised the landowner’s right of redemption after foreclosure, or the landowner can 

prove the land was not obtained for the purpose of enrolling it in the program. To participate in a 

restoration cost-share agreement, the landowner must show evidence of ownership. 

To be eligible for WRP, land must be restorable and suitable for wildlife benefits. Potentially 

appropriate types of land include: 

• Wetlands farmed under natural conditions; 

• Farmed wetlands; 

• Prior converted cropland; 

• Farmed wetland pasture; 

• Farmland that has become a wetland as a result of flooding; 

• Range land, pasture, or production forest land where the hydrology has been significantly 

degraded and can be restored; 

• Riparian areas which link protected wetlands; 

• Lands adjacent to protected wetlands that contribute significantly to wetland functions and 

values; and 

• Previously restored wetlands that need long-term protection. 

36
37

Ineligible land includes wetlands converted after December 23, 1985; lands with timber stands 

established under a Conservation Reserve Program contract; Federal lands; and lands where 

conditions make restoration impossible.

Amount of Assistance provided for FY06 in MD, PA, VA, DC, DE, WV, NY (CB 

Watershed)? $8,218,024 (State totals, not CB watershed-specific. Also, this number is not 

final)

Amount of Assistance provided in past three years to CB watershed per state? 

Totals for CB watershed States: 2005--$6,924,748 

 2004--$8,292,065 

 2003--$7,661,746 

 

Federal Inventory Spending 2005 (see Appendix C): $2,372,520 included as indirect 

spending. 

Cost Share Requirements: NRCS cost-share payments vary by contract type: 

• Permanent Easement. This is a conservation easement in perpetuity. Easement 

payments for this option equal the lowest of three amounts: the agricultural value of 

the land, an established payment cap, or an amount offered by the landowner. In 

addition to paying for the easement, USDA pays 100 percent of the costs of restoring 

the wetland. 

• 30-Year Easement. Easement payments through this option are 75 percent of what 

would be paid for a permanent easement. USDA also pays up to 75 percent of 

restoration costs. For both permanent and 30-year easements, USDA pays all costs 

associated with recording the easement in the local land records office, including 

recording fees, charges for abstracts, survey and appraisal fees, and title insurance. 

• Restoration Cost-Share Agreement. This is an agreement (generally for a minimum of 

10 years) to re-establish degraded or lost wetland habitat. USDA pays up to 75 

percent of the cost of the restoration activity. This enrollment option does not place 

an easement on the property. Other agencies, conservation districts, and private 

conservation organizations may provide additional incentive payments as a way to 

reduce the landowner’s share of the costs. Such special partnership efforts are 

encouraged.

Authority: Reauthorized in the 2002 Farm Bill 

Funding criteria/rating system: Applications are ranked according to criteria developed at the 

State or local level. These criteria are posted on each NRCS State website.

NRCS Partners: State Departments of Agriculture, Conservation Districts, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, non-profit organizations. 
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) 

Section I: Program Overview

Funding Program Name: Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP)

Agency: USDA NRCS 

Contact information: Each NRCS State Office has a WHIP program manager. Landowners can 

contact their local USDA Service Center for information about enrolling in the program. 

Established: 1996 Farm Bill 

Description: The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) is a voluntary program that 

encourages creation of high quality wildlife habitats that support wildlife populations of 

National, State, Tribal, and local significance. Through WHIP, NRCS provides technical and 

financial assistance to land-owners and others to develop upland, wetland, riparian, and aquatic 

habitat areas on their property. 

Section II: Funding Availability 

When is funding Available? NRCS announces funding availability each year. The timing is 

variable and contingent upon Congressional appropriations. Landowners, however, may submit 

a WHIP application at any time during the year. 

Who is eligible? WHIP is available in all Chesapeake Bay watershed states. To be eligible, an 

individual or entity must own or have control of the land to be enrolled in the program for the 

duration of the agreement period. Eligible lands include privately owned land; Federal land when 

the primary benefit is on private or Tribal land; State and local government land on a limited 

basis; and Tribal land. 

Amount of Assistance provided for FY06 in MD, PA, VA, DC, DE, WV, NY (CB 

Watershed)? $1,281,602 (State totals, not CB watershed-specific.)

Amount of Assistance provided in past three years to CB watershed per state? 

Totals for CB watershed States: 2005--$3,005,496; 2004--$2,701,486; 2003--$1,873,812 

CBP Federal Inventory Spending 2005 (see Appendix C): $1,634,931 included as indirect 

spending.

Cost Share Requirements: Landowner cost-share varies by State and conservation practice. 

Maximum cost-share assistance is 75 percent. WHIP agreements between NRCS and the 

participant generally last from 5 to 10 years from the date the agreement is signed. 

Authority: Reauthorized in the 2002 Farm Bill. 

Funding criteria/rating system: Applications are ranked according to criteria developed at the 

State or local level. These criteria are posted on each NRCS State website.

NRCS Partners: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, State Departments of Agriculture, 

Conservation Districts, NGOs. 

38
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Non Point Source Implementation Grants (319 Program) 

Section I: Program Overview 

Funding Program Name: Pennsylvania Nonpoint Source Implementation Grants (319 

Program) 

Agency: EPA Region III, Water Protection Division 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Water Management Virginia 

Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Soil and Water Conservation 

Contact information: 

Fred L. Suffian 

Program Manager (3WP10) 

Nonpoint Source Pollution Program 

1650 Arch Street, Phila PA 19103 

Phone: 215-814-5753 Fax: 215-814-5753 

Suzanne Hall, EPA PA NPS Coordinator 

Mailcode: 3WP10 

1650 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

Phone: 215-814-5701 

Russell Wagner, Chief 

Non Point Source Section 

Bureau of Water Management 

PA Department of Environmental Protection 

P.O. Box 8555 

Harrisburg, PA 17105 

Phone: 717-772-5642 

Ann Carkhuff EPA Virginia and Maryland 

NPS Coordinator 

Mailcode: 3WP10 

1650 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

Phone: 215-814-5735 

Rick Hill, Non Point Source Program 

Manager 

Division of Soil and Water Conservation 

Virginia Department of Conservation and 

Recreation 

203 Governor Street, Suite 206 

Richmond, VA 23219 

Phone: 804-786-1798 

Established: 1987

Description: Through its 319 program, EPA provides formula grants to the states and tribes to 

implement nonpoint source projects and programs in accordance with section 319 of the Clean 

Water Act (CWA). Nonpoint source pollution reduction projects can be used to protect source 

water areas and the general quality of water resources in a watershed. Examples of previously 

funded projects include installation of best management practices (BMPs) for animal waste; 

design and implementation of BMP systems for stream, lake, and estuary watersheds; basinwide 

landowner education programs; and lake projects previously funded under the CWA section 314 

Clean Lakes Program. 

Section II: Funding Availability 

39

When is funding Available? Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) 

issues a RFP for the Growing Greener, NPS Section 319 and Coastal NPS programs in the late 

fall or winter to be submitted in early February. Grant recipients are selected and Growing 

Greener projects are announced in late summer early fall. Section 319 funding availability 

varies due to certain requirements that are required before a grant award can be made. Generally 
40

the NPS grant is awarded during the summer, however, we are working to make that date earlier 

in the year. 

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) issues a RFP for NPS Section 319, 

Coastal NPS and State Water Quality Funds programs in late fall to be submitted by January. 

Who is eligible? Business, Community/Watershed Group, Nonprofit Groups, Educational 

Institution, Private Landowner, Conservation District, Local Government, State/Territorial 

Agency, Tribal Agency, Federal Agency 

Amount of Assistance provided for FY06? 

PA (Entire State): $5,900,100 

Amount of Assistance provided in past three years to CB watershed? 

PA: FY 2003, 2004 and 2005: $8,193,522 total. An additional $4,591,293 were spent on 

projects that were funded statewide. This additional money often funds staffing for the State 

Central office and regional offices, technical assistance, education programs and other workplans 

which target the entire Commonwealth. 

VA: $3,962,400 

CBP Federal Inventory Spending 2005 (see Appendix C): $5,521,039 for the CBP Watershed 

in the states of MD, VA, PA, DC, WV and DE included in Inventory. 

Cost Share Requirements: States are required to provide 40% non-Federal match for whole 

grant. Recipients within state typically are required to provide 40% match for each project, but 

this may be negotiable with a given state." 

 

Cost Share at State level distribution? 40% 

Authority: Clean Water Act, Section.319 

Funding criteria/rating system: 

The states are required by EPA Guidance of 2003 to provide the following information in 

their Watershed Plans (for watersheds that do not have a TMDL): 

a. An identification of the causes and sources or groups of similar sources that will need to be 

controlled to achieve the load reductions estimated in this watershed-based plan (and to achieve 

any other watershed goals identified in the watershed-based plan), as discussed in item (b) 

immediately below. Sources that need to be controlled 

should be identified at the significant subcategory level with estimates of the extent to which 

they are present in the watershed (e.g., X number of dairy cattle feedlots needing upgrading, 

including a rough estimate of the number of cattle per facility; Y acres of row 

crops needing improved nutrient management or sediment control; or Z linear miles of eroded 

streambank needing remediation). b. An estimate of the load reductions expected for the 

management measures described under paragraph (c) below (recognizing the natural variability 

and the difficulty in precisely predicting the performance 

of management measures over time). Estimates should be provided at the same level as in item 

(a) above (e.g., the total load reduction expected for dairy cattle feedlots; row crops; or eroded 

streambanks). c. A description of the NPS management measures that will need to be 

implemented to achieve the load reductions estimated under paragraph 
41

(b) above (as well as to achieve other watershed goals identified in this watershed-based plan), 

and an identification (using a map or a description) of the critical areas in which those measures 

will be needed to implement this plan. d. An estimate of the amounts of technical and financial 

assistance needed, associated costs, and/or the sources and authorities that will be relied upon, to 

implement this plan. As sources of funding, States should consider the use of their Section 319 

programs, State Revolving Funds, USDA's Environmental Quality Incentives Program and 

Conservation Reserve Program, and other relevant Federal, State, local and private funds that 

may be available to assist in implementing this plan. e. An information/education component 

that will be used to enhance public understanding of the project and encourage their early and 

continued participation in selecting, designing, and implementing the NPS management 

measures that will be implemented. f. A schedule for implementing the NPS management 

measures identified in this plan that is reasonably expeditious. g. A description of interim, 

measurable milestones for determining whether NPS management measures or other control 

actions are being implemented. h. A set of criteria that can be used to determine whether loading 

reductions are being achieved over time and substantial progress is being made towards attaining 

water quality standards and, if not, the criteria for determining whether this watershed-based plan 

needs to be revised or, if a NPS TMDL has been established, whether the NPS TMDL needs to 

be revised. i. A monitoring component to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation 

efforts over time, measured against the criteria established under item (h) immediately above. 

More information can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/nps

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Section III: Funding Distribution Question and Answer 

How do the HQ offices (Washington DC) determine the distribution of funds among the 

Regional offices? The allocation for each state is determined according to the NPS Guidance 

document available on the website. HQ begins with the total 319 funding allocation and subtract 

at least 1/3% of the total appropriation for distribution to Indian Tribes. The remaining funds are 

multiplied by the applicable state percentage, which for PA it is 2.95%. 

How much discretion do regional offices/lead agencies have in the distribution of funds to 

states, localities or watershed organizations? EPA awards the grant amount to the state, 

however Region 3 works with states to pre-review potential projects to be submitted under the 

Section 319 application to identify if there are any plans that clearly do not meet the 

requirements of the NPS guidance. 

How are priorities set for the distribution of funds in regional/lead offices? Is their a 

formula for how it is distributed? Is there a priorities list of objectives or projects targeted? 

Federal: Since 1999 section 319(h) funds have been awarded to state nonpoint source agencies 

in two categories—incremental funds and base funds. Incremental funds, a $100 million portion 

that EPA has designated for the development and implementation of watershed-based plans and 

Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for impaired waters, should be used to restore impaired 

waters. Base funds, funds other than incremental funds, are used to provide staffing and support 

to manage and implement the state Nonpoint Source Management Program. Base funds help in 

implementing projects to identify and address nonpoint source problems and threats, as well as 

funding activities that involve specific waterbodies in that state or statewide or regional projects. 

A portion of these funds (up to 20 percent) may be used for planning and assessment activities 

such as conducting assessments, developing TMDLs, and creating programs to solve nonpoint 

source problems. EPA has issued supplemental grant guidelines, in addition to the 1997 

Nonpoint Source Guidance, that identify priority activities to be funded with section 319 
42

incremental and base funds. Applying for and Administering CWA Section 319 Grants: (EPA’s 

A Guide for State Nonpoint SourceAgencies, USEPA, 2003)

State: Currently, majority of Pennsylvania state funds have been directed towards Abandoned 

Mine Drainage because the TMDLs and plans for AMD were ready to go and less complicated 

than BMPs. Virginia’s target for NPS funds is to delist waters on the impaired 303(d) list. 

Is their a guidance document that guide applicants that is provided? If so, how often is it 

published and who is responsible for distribution and content? 

EPA’s most recent guidance regarding the development of Watershed Based Plans in order to 

utilize Incremental funds was last published in October of 2003 and is the most recent document 

published by EPA HQ. The Guidance document states in section III D: “For projects funded 

with incremental dollars, where a NPS TMDL for the affected waters has already been 

developed and approved or is being developed, the watershed-based plan must be designed to 

achieve the load reductions called for in the NPS TMDL. However, where a NPS TMDL has not 

yet been developed and approved or is not yet being developed for the waters, the State may use 

Section 319 funds to develop a watershed-based plan in the absence of the TMDL. In such cases, 

the plan must be designed to reduce nonpoint source pollutant loadings that are contributing to 

water quality threats and impairments. Where feasible, the plan should be designed to meet 

water quality standards. 

In this way, progress towards achieving water quality standards continues even before a TMDL 

is established. Once the TMDL is completed and approved, the plan must be modified as 

appropriate to be consistent with the load allocation portion contained within the TMDL.“ 

The complete guidance document can be viewed at: http://www.epa.gov/EPAWATER/2003/October/Day-23/w26755.htm

Additionally, states releases a RFP for the three programs each year which describes what types 

of projects are eligible for funds. 

If not how do applicants get word of what is available and for what purpose? N/A 

How are selections made? 

PA: Selection of projects is made through the Growing Greener selection process and those 

applicants that are willing to accept federal funding and meet EPA’s criteria are culled. First the 

PADEP Regional offices review the plans and weed out those that meet the Growing Greener 

criteria and those that don’t. Then there is a larger meeting where the Regional staff and Central 

office meet to go through the selected plans. From these, best of the best, plans that meet the 

NPS criteria are selected for funding under Section 319. PADEP then allows EPA to review 

their top choices to allow the opportunity to remove any plans that don’t appear to us to meet the 

criteria. Those plans selected are then allowed to modify their workplans to meet any missing 

criteria and those that submit revised plans are selected for funding when the award is made. 

Are their regional or geographic areas that are targeted? If not, why? 

Yes, those areas that have developed a watershed based plan are being targeted in order to 

restore the watershed and meet designated uses. 

What was the distribution of funds last year (who got the money by sector)? 

PA: In 2005, 21 out of 39 funded projects were located in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. 

Is it possible to determine watershed areas that were targeted? 
43

Incremental funds have been targeted in watersheds that have developed a Watershed Based Plan 

meeting the NPS Guidance since 2003. 

What type of environmental results (outcomes) are included in award documents? 

Predicted load reduction estimates are required with each watershed plan and with each 

individual workplan that is implementing best management practices. 

Section IV: Interviews Specific to State Tributary Strategies 

Are you familiar with the state Tributary Strategies developed to target implementation of 

nutrient and sediment reductions for improved water quality? 

PA State coordinator is, however, the coordinator of the Chesapeake Bay Program in PA also 

reviews our plans and provides input. 

In Virginia, all NPS programs are managed in the same office so coordination with Chesapeake 

Bay Program is strong. There is also a NPS Advisory Committee, where NPS coordinators 

(federal and state) are participating. NPS plan in Virginia is also consistent with Bay Model 

needs. 

Currently going through a reorganization and there will be a new director that will have 

coordination responsibility. 

How can your program guidance/rules be improved to better focus on tributary strategies? 

Watersheds with tributary strategies can alter their watershed-based plans in order to meet the 

NPS Guidance Section III D (a)-(i) guidance criteria (see above) and would then be eligible for 

Incremental funding from the NPS program. 

Preliminary discussions are occurring in Virginia to examine those issues. 

How can states and local stakeholders improve ability to compete with others to increase 

the % of funds being awarded to tributary strategy implementation? 

Currently, the target is not CBP state tributary strategy implementation, as the guidance from 

EPA Hqs is the driver and TMDL is the vehicle. However, the requirements in the 319 

Guidance for watershed-based plans do contain requirements that may be able to be fulfilled by 

the tributary strategies, based on a basin by basin review. Additionally, in the future it is the 

hope that PA NPS management program plan will be supporting more agricultural programs. 

In the past there was more opportunity to fund more watershed based projects with watershed 

association stakeholders. Preliminary discussions are occurring in Virginia to examine these 

issues. VA is trying to enhance the technical assistance available. 

Are there examples of using these funds to help access additional funding (leveraging)? PA 

coordinates with other funds such as USDA’s EQIP to supplement 319 funds. Most funds are 

sought after by the same Counties that have been involved in the Bay program for many years. 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) 

Section I: Program Overview 

Program Information: Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) 

Agency: EPA, Region III 

Division: WPD 

Contact information: 

Magdalene Cunningham and Catherine King 

Mailcode: 3WP50 

1650 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

Phone: (215) 814-2338 and (215) 814-2657, respectively. 

Established: 1989 

Description: EPA awards grants to states to capitalize their Clean Water State Revolving Funds 

(CWSRFs). The states, through the CWSRF, make loans for high-priority water quality 

activities. As loan recipients make payments back into the fund, money becomes available again 

for additional loans to be issued to new applicants. CWSRF eligible projects include point 

source, nonpoint source and estuary protection projects. Point source projects typically include 

construction (including upgrading, expanding and repairing) at wastewater treatment facilities, 

combined sewer overflow and sanitary sewer overflow correction, urban stormwater control, and 

water quality aspects of landfill projects. Nonpoint source projects include agricultural and 

silviculture best management practices, rural and urban runoff control, repair and replacement of 

failing on-site wastewater disposal systems (septic tanks), land conservation, riparian buffers, 

and water quality aspects of leaking underground storage tank remediation, and Brownfields 

projects. Estuary protection projects include all of the above point and nonpoint source projects 

as well as habitat restoration and other unique estuary projects. See: 

http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/index.htm for more information about the CWSRF 

program. 

In Region III, the state agencies that manage the CWSRF programs are as follows: 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC); 

Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE); Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment 

Authority (PENNVEST); Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP); 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ); Virginia Resources Authority (VRA); 

West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP); and the West Virginia Water 

Development Authority (WVWDA). Each state has a priority ranking system that is used to 

evaluate proposed CWSRF projects. The following websites contain more information about the 

various state ranking systems: 

http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/water2000/Sections/FAB/FABLoans.htm, 

http://www.mde.state.md.us/Programs/WaterPrograms/Water_Quality_Finance/index.asp, 

http://www.pennvest.state.pa.us/pennvest/cwp/view.asp?A=4&Q=72523, 

http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/watersupply/cwp/view.asp?a=1263&Q=448094&watersupplyNa

v=|30198|#Financial, http://www.deq.virginia.gov/cap/wwman.html, and 

44
45

http://www.dep.state.wv.us/item.cfm?ssid=11&ss1id=220. OIA staff can provide copies of each 

state’s priority ranking system and are available to discuss them if this would be helpful. 

There is variation in the ways that states market their CW SRF programs. 

Point Sources: For point source projects, PA holds meetings six times a year for professional 

wastewater organizations and other interested parties. WV partners with the WV Infrastructure 

and Jobs Development Council, which provides financial coordination for the construction of 

water and sewer systems in all geographic areas of the state. DE, MD, and VA send solicitations 

requesting CW SRF applications to each waste water facility in the state. 

Non point Sources: MDE works with the Maryland Department of Natural Resources to 

promote the use of CW SRF loans for non-point source projects. DNREC coordinates with its 

CWA Section 319 staff and the USDA NRCS state offices to market the CWSRF for non-point 

source projects. PENNVEST works with the state housing authority to implement septic or “onlot” projects and with PA DEP Section 319 and Brownfields staff. VADEQ works with the 

USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) to promote agricultural non-point source projects and with 

their Brownfields staff, as well. WVDEQ partners with the USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) 

and its CWA Section 319 staff. 

Washington DC receives an annual grant from the U.S.EPA to fund the same type of projects 

implemented by the CWSRF in the states. 

Section II: Funding Availability 

When is funding available? Capitalization grants are made to the states on an annual basis. 

States make SRF loans throughout the year. 

Who is eligible? 

Point Sources: Local government entities only 

Non Point Sources: Businesses, Community/Watershed Groups , Nonprofit Groups , Private 

Landowners, Conservation Districts, Water and Wastewater Utilities, Local Governments, and 

State/Territorial/Tribal Agencies.

CWSRF Funds Provided for Projects (not Bay Watershed Specific) from 1989 to 6/30/05 

(millions of dollars): 

Federal Total (includes state contributions and interest) 

Delaware $107.2 $160.3 

Maryland $544.2 $1,027.7 

Pennsylvania $894 $1,403.6 

Virginia $552.9 $1,451.1 

CBP Federal Inventory Spending 2005 (see Appendix C): 

FY 2005 SRF Spending from State Reports 

State 212 Program 

(Municipal Waste Water Treatment)

Non Point Sources 
46

DC $5,243,500 (grant) 0 

DE $2,841,680 $191,847* 

MD $24,507,743 $3,345,325 

PA 0 0 

VA $3,275,000 $4,036,869A

WV 0 $223,656* 

TOTAL $35,867,923 $7,797,697 

* - Calculated using % of county in the CB watershed. 

A – Entire state. 

For additional CWSRF financial information, see: http://www.epa.gov/r5water/cwsrf/. 

Cost Share Requirements: None 

Authority: Clean Water Act, sections. 601-607, Public Law 95-217 

Funding Criteria/Rating system: Each state develops a priority projects list that is submitted 

to EPA for review. 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Section III: Funding Distribution Question and Answer: 

How do the HQ offices (Washington DC) determine the distribution of funds among the 

Regional offices? The allocation of grant funds from the Clean Water Act contains the formula 

by which the U.S. EPA allocates the Federal Appropriation for the CWSRF state programs. 

How much discretion do regional offices have in the distribution of funds to states, 

localities or watershed organizations? States establish priority systems with which they 

review and rank projects annually. U.S. EPA Regions II and III review and accept the states’ 

priority systems. The states generally fund projects in priority order, although this is not 

required by the CWA. 

How are priorities set for the distribution of funds? Is their a formula for how it is 

distributed? Is there a priorities list of objectives or projects targeted? Each state 

establishes its own ranking system based on its water quality priorities. Generally, point source 

projects required by Consent Orders or impacting streams with TMDLs receive higher rankings.

Is their a guidance document to guide applicants that is provided? If so, how often is it 

published and who is responsible for distribution and content? This information may be 

found on the websites referenced on page one for each state.

If not, how do applicants get word of what is available and for what purpose? N/A
47

How are selections made? Generally, projects are selected for funding based on established 

priority systems. 

Are their regional or geographic areas that are targeted? If not, why? Each state develops a 

system to rank projects based on what it determines are its water quality priorities. Current 

priority systems in the states of Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia 

do not include geographic criteria for targeting funding. Delaware’s system gives higher points 

for projects that are located within the geographic areas of the state where development is 

encouraged. 

What was the distribution of funds last year (who got the money by sector)? 

Information is available by county within each state, but not by any other sector except what is 

specifically collected for the Chesapeake Bay watershed. 

Is it possible to determine watershed areas that were targeted? 

Specific watersheds are not targeted by CWSRF programs. 

What type of environmental results (outcomes) do you expect? Expected environmental 

results are on a project by project basis. The U.S. EPA began collecting data on the 

environmental results of individual projects in FY 2005.

Section IV: Interviews Specific to State Tributary Strategies 

Are you familiar with the state Tributary Strategies developed to target implementation of 

nutrient and sediment reductions for improved water quality? 

State CWSRF managers are fully aware of the Tributary Strategies and generally include the 

goals of these strategies as part of their programs’ goals. 

How can your program guidance/rules be improved to better focus on tributary strategies? 

Virginia and Maryland already include state tributary strategies and other Chesapeake 2000 goals 

in their Intended Use Plan (IUP), which is equivalent to a workplan in grant programs. 

Pennsylvania, West Virginia and (probably) Delaware do not. Through the CWSRF process, the 

EPA SRF managers can comment on the IUP’s in the future to encourage states to include 

coordination with state tributary strategies. In addition, EPA’s annual review of the Program 

Evaluation Report (PER) would serve as a catalyst for comments on state tributary strategies. 

How can states and local stakeholders improve ability to compete with others to increase 

the percentage of funds being awarded to tributary strategy implementation? Local 

stakeholders can increase the amount of CWSRF funds towards implementing Tributary 

strategies by: 

1. Recognizing the usefulness of low-interest loans which have few “strings” attached as 

opposed to federal grant dollars that are accompanied by sometimes burdensome federal 

requirements; 

2. Partnering with local wastewater treatment facilities, which can provide a guaranteed source 

for loan repayments; and 

3. Encouraging local treatment facilities to move forward more quickly with implementing their 

permit requirements. 
48

Are there examples of using these funds to help access additional funding (leveraging)? As 

discussed above, Virginia’s CWSRF leveraged its CWSRF funds in 1999, 2000, and 2004. 

Maryland’s CWSRF managers leveraged its grant funds in the early 1990’s and they annually 

determine if additional leveraging is warranted based on each year’s demand for loan dollars. 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Chesapeake Bay State Implementation Grants (CBIG) 

Section I: Program Overview: 

Program Name: Chesapeake Bay State Implementation Grants 

Agency: U. S. EPA Region III 

Division: Chesapeake Bay Program Office 

Contact information: 

Maryland: 

Danielle Algazi 

Chesapeake Bay Program Office 

1650 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

Phone: 215-814-2722 

Pennsylvania and Virginia: 

Kyle Zieba 

Chesapeake Bay Program Office 

1650 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

Phone: 215-814-5420 

District of Columbia 

Reggie Parrish 

Chesapeake Bay Program Office 

410 Severn Avenue, Suite 109 

Annapolis, Maryland 21403 

Phone: 410-267-5772 

Established: 1989 

Description: As authorized in Section 117(e) of the Clean Water Act, (see authorization details 

below) EPA provides a portion of its Chesapeake Bay Program Office funds to the signatory 

jurisdictions. The signatory jurisdictions are members of the Executive Committee (EC) of the 

Chesapeake Bay Program that have signed Chesapeake Bay Agreements that outline the 

commitments of the Chesapeake Bay Program partnership to restore the Bay. The signatory 

jurisdictions include the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Virginia, Maryland and the District 

of Columbia. Along with the U.S. EPA and the Chesapeake Bay Commission, these EC 

members created a voluntary partnership to improve conditions of the Chesapeake Bay basin. 

The implementation grants are used by the jurisdictions to enhance state funds to achieve state 

tributary strategies goals. The strategies are long term goals for nutrient and sediment reductions 

to improve water quality, as outlined in the Chesapeake 2000 agreement. Activities that are 

conducted under these grants include the installation of best management practices, technical 

assistance to the agricultural community and development of nutrient management plans for 

farms. These funds are also used to collect the required data necessary for the Chesapeake Bay 

Program Office to monitor progress.

Section II: Funding Availability 

When is funding Available? Funding is usually available to each state by June of each year. 

States provide EPA with a workplan and applicant. These grants are not competed. 

Who is eligible? Chesapeake Bay Program Signatory Jurisdictions 

49
50

Amount of Assistance provided for FY06? 

MD, VA and PA anticipated award: $2,227,000 each 

DC anticipated award: $767,000 

Amount of Assistance provided in past three years to CB watershed per state? 

FY05, FY04 and FY03: MD, VA and PA each awarded $2,287,000 per year. DC awarded 

$767,000 per year. 

CBP Federal Inventory Spending 2005 (see Appendix C): In addition to CBIG, inventory 

included the entire CBPO budget in the EPA Direct Spending for a total of $20,772,400. 

Cost Share Requirements: 50% cost share of total project costs (equal match/dollar for dollar) 

Authority: Section 117(e) of the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000 authorizes EPA to 

award grants to signatory jurisdictions, specifically for Implementation Grants. The 

Implementation Grants are for the purpose of implementing the management mechanisms 

established under the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, such as ongoing state programs for control 

and abatement of non-point source pollution (including atmospheric deposition as a non-point 

source). 

Funding criteria/rating system: These grants are authorized by the CWA to the State 

Signatories of the Chesapeake 2000 Commitments and are not competed. The workplans are 

negotiated annually, and the objectives are all based on the implementation of Chesapeake Bay 

2000 Agreement goals and achievement of state tributary strategies.

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Section III: Funding Distribution Question and Answer 

How do the HQ offices (Washington DC) determine the distribution of funds among the 

Regional offices? The funds are appropriated by congressional authority. 

How much discretion do regional offices/lead agencies have in the distribution of funds to 

states, localities or watershed organizations? 

The Regional office has full discretion to distribute funds that are allocated to the states. 

How are priorities set for the distribution of funds in regional/lead offices? Is their a 

formula for how it is distributed? Is there a priorities list of objectives or projects targeted?

After initial funds are set aside for CBPO functions, such as staffing, office support and 

computer support, a majority of the remaining funds (about 40% of the overall CBPO funds) are 

distributed equally among the three signatory states of MD, VA and PA with a smaller portion 

going to the District of Columbia because of geographic scale. 

Is their a guidance document that guide applicants that is provided? If so, how often is it 

published and who is responsible for distribution and content? 

A guidance document entitled “U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program 
51

Grants and Cooperative Agreement Guidance” is revised and distributed by the Chesapeake Bay 

Program Office annually. It can be found at: 

http://www.epa.gov/region03/chesapeake/grants.htm

If not how do applicants get word of what is available and for what purpose? 

N/A 

How are selections made? N/A

Are their regional or geographic areas that are targeted? If not, why? 

Each state determines where the funds are best used to meet the goals of the State Tributary 

Strategy. 

What was the distribution of funds last year (who got the money by sector)? 

In MD, 90% of the funds are used for the agricultural sector while 10% is targeted at point 

source data collection and education. In PA and VA, 100% is targeted at non point sources, 

primarily agriculture. 

Is it possible to determine watershed areas that were targeted? 

Yes, the watersheds are all within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. 

What type of environmental results (outcomes) are included in award documents? 

States submit data to EPA from monitoring and implementation efforts. Monitoring efforts 

produce data on water quality and nutrient and sediment levels enabling EPA to track progress, 

estimate future pollution levels and assess the overall condition of the Bay. Implementation 

efforts produce data, such as the location of and type of best management practices installed, that 

EPA can use to estimate future pollution levels. 

States also submit semi-annual reports to EPA detailing accomplishments during the grant 

project period. The States provide information specific to each objective in their workplans 

include: a comparison of actual accomplishments with the anticipated reasons why anticipated 

outcomes were exceeded or not met, and information on the rate of expenditure. Progress 

Reports and Work Plans are available for viewing at: 

http://www.epa.gov/region03/chesapeake/grants.htm

Section IV: Interviews Specific to State Tributary Strategies. 

Are you familiar with the state Tributary Strategies developed to target implementation of 

nutrient and sediment reductions for improved water quality? 

Yes, and the state project officers are also familiar with the State Tributary Strategies. 

How can your program guidance/rules be improved to better focus on tributary strategies? 

This program’s focus is on the tributary strategies. 

How can states and local stakeholders improve ability to compete with others to increase 

the % of funds being awarded to tributary strategy implementation? 

N/A 

Are there examples of using these funds to help access additional funding (leveraging)? 

These funds are being leveraged with state cost share requirements. 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Fish and 

Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) 

Chesapeake Bay Targeted Watershed Grants Program (TWG) 

Section I: Program Overview

Funding Program Name: Chesapeake Bay Targeted Watershed Grants Program 

Agency: US EPA/National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 

Division: CBPO 

Contact information: Amanda Bassow, 202-715-0711 or Kyle Zieba, 215-814-5420 

Established: 2005

Description: The jurisdictions within the Chesapeake Bay watershed have agreed to meet 

aggressive nutrient reduction targets by 2010 through the development and implementation of 

Tributary Strategies in accordance with the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. The Administration 

and Congress have responded to this increased focus on the need to reduce nutrient loads to the 

Chesapeake Bay by appropriating nearly $8 million dollars in fiscal year 2005 through EPA's 

National Targeted Watersheds Grant Program. This funding supports innovative projects 

designed to foster nutrient reduction in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. 

The Chesapeake Bay Targeted Watersheds Grant Program is administered by the National Fish 

and Wildlife Foundation, under a cooperative agreement with the Chesapeake Bay Program and, 

funding partner, the Chesapeake Bay Trust. Under the grant, the NFWF administers the program 

through the development of the RFP, the review criteria and process and awarding and managing 

the sub-awards. 

The overall goal for the Chesapeake Bay Targeted Watersheds Grant Program is to expand the 

collective knowledge on the most innovative, sustainable and cost-effective strategies - 

including market-based approaches - for reducing excess nutrient loads within specific 

tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay. To achieve this goal, the program has awarded grants of up 

to $1 million on a competitive basis to selected projects that target and reflect the diverse 

conditions (e.g., urban, rural, suburban) and sources of nutrients (e.g., agricultural, stormwater, 

other non-point sources) that exist throughout the Chesapeake watershed. The program supported 

projects that: 

3⁄4 Support implementation of water quality trading demonstrations and other market-based 

strategies to reduce nutrient loads to the Bay; 

3⁄4 Promote the development of innovative, cost-effective approaches to facilitate adoption of 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) or those that identify and implement strategies to 

overcome existing barriers to adoption of BMPs; 

3⁄4 Demonstrate and ground-truth new BMPs or innovative technologies that support inclusion 

on the list of practices approved for use within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model; and, 

3⁄4 Foster implementation and evaluation of the most effective BMPs or nutrient reduction 

measures contained in state Tributary Strategies within small watersheds. 

Section II: Funding Availability 

52
53

When is funding Available? Funding is dependent on Congressional appropriation. 

Who is eligible? Eligible applicants are either non-profit 501(c) organizations, universities, 

local or state governments (i.e., state conservation agencies, counties, townships, cities, 

boroughs, conservation districts, planning districts, utility districts, drainage districts, or other 

units of local government) from the Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, District of Columbia, 

New York, West Virginia, and Delaware portions of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Non-profit 

organizations and universities located outside the Chesapeake Bay watershed may apply only if 

their projects will be conducted within the watershed. Individuals, federal government agencies, 

and private for-profit firms are not eligible for grants under this program. 

Amount of Assistance provided for FY06 in MD, PA, VA, DC, DE, WV, NY CB 

Watershed? In FY 2005, $7,936,000 was available for the administration and sub-awards. In 

FY 2006, $5,561,700 is available for the administration and sub-awards. 

Amount of Assistance provided in past three years to CB watershed per state? N/A 

Cost Share Requirements: 25% non-federal match 

CBP Federal Inventory Spending 2005 (see Appendix C): FY 2005 $7,936,000 of the entire 

budget is included in EPA’s direct funding. 

Authority: Authorization for the program comes from the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 

2005 (P.L. 108-447) which directs the Chesapeake Bay Program to establish "a regional pilot 

program for the Chesapeake Bay that shall demonstrate effective non-point source nutrient 

reduction approaches that target small watersheds and accelerate nutrient reduction in innovative, 

sustainable, and cost-effective ways." The money is allocated through EPA’s 104(b)(3) 

authority. 

Funding criteria/rating system: 

Projects will be reviewed, evaluated, and scored based on the following criteria: 

• Innovation (20 Points) 

- Use of innovative approaches to foster cost-effective nutrient reduction strategies (e.g. 

market based mechanisms or new BMPs) 

• Environmental Results (20 Points) 

- Inclusion of a detailed monitoring and data collection strategy to obtain measurable 

environmental results (i.e. cost-effective, sustainable, nutrient reductions); 

- Capacity to accelerate nutrient reduction targets as outlined in applicable Tributary 

Strategies and other specific Chesapeake 2000 commitments 

• Practical Solutions (30 Points) 

- Ability to expand the collective knowledge on the most innovative, sustainable, and 

cost-effective nutrient reduction strategies 

- Feasibility: extent to which nutrient reduction strategies are technically sound, ready to 

go, and cost-effective 

- Sustainability: ability to sustain nutrient reduction capacity beyond term of the grant, 

including efforts to measure nutrient reductions 

- Transferability: extent to which the project’s nutrient reduction strategy is transferable 

to other targeted areas within the Chesapeake Bay watershed and feasibility of scaling up 

a project’s strategies to the Chesapeake Bay watershed as a whole 

• Partnerships (10 Points) 

- Existence of strong and diverse stakeholder stewardship and support (e.g. effective 

working relationships among public, private, and non-profit organizations) 
54

• Dissemination (10 Points) 

- Demonstration of a clear strategy for sharing the expanded collective knowledge of 

cost-effective, sustainable, nutrient reduction strategies with relevant stakeholders within 

the Chesapeake Bay watershed 

• Budget (10 Points) 

- Clearly presented and reasonable budget; 

- Ability to leverage funds from a broad range of sources and exceed the minimum 25% 

non-federal match requirement 

______________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Funding Distribution Question and Answer 

How do the HQ offices (Washington DC) determine the distribution of funds among the 

Regional offices? Congress appropriated funding for the National Targeted Watershed Program 

(administered by EPA HQ) and created the Chesapeake Bay Targeted Watershed Grant Program 

from that appropriation. 

How much discretion do regional offices/lead agencies have in the distribution of funds to 

states, localities or watershed organizations? EPA awarded a grant to the NFWF to administer 

the FY 2005 program and is working on awarding the FY 2006 grant to them as well. NFWF, 

under the grant, makes the official decisions on the sub-award program. The program is a 

competitive program and NFWF makes awards based upon how well proposals meet the criteria 

listed above. 

How are priorities set for the distribution of funds in regional/lead offices? Is their a 

formula for how it is distributed? Is there a priorities list of objectives or projects targeted? 

(see list of program supported projects above) 

Is their a guidance document that guide applicants that is provided? If so, how often is it 

published and who is responsible for distribution and content? /A 

If not how do applicants get word of what is available and for what purpose? A Request for 

Proposals is issued and distributed via the Chesapeake Bay Program’s mailing list and posted on 

the NFWF website. 

How are selections made? NFWF makes the selections with input from a review panel that 

scores the proposals. 

Are their regional or geographic areas that are targeted? If not, why? (see description 

above) 

What was the distribution of funds last year (who got the money by sector)? 

This information can be obtained at: http://www.nfwf.org/programs/targetedwatershed/

Is it possible to determine watershed areas that were targeted? 

This information can be obtained at: http://www.nfwf.org/programs/targetedwatershed/

What type of environmental results (outcomes) are included in award documents? 

Eligible projects must be able to demonstrate real, measurable environmental results. Applicants 

must include information on anticipated outputs (i.e. activities and/or associated work products 

performed or conducted during the proposed funding period) and outcomes (i.e. results, effects, 
55

consequences of a recipient’s actions) for their projects. For the Chesapeake Bay Targeted 

Watersheds Grant Program, proposed outcomes should be expressed in terms of the specific, 

quantifiable amount of nutrients to be reduced where applicable. 

It is recognized that not all projects designed to obtain nutrient reductions lend themselves to be 

able to detect statistically significant water quality improvements through actual real-time 

monitoring. For example, it may take several years for the nutrient reduction benefits of many 

agricultural BMPs to be noticed within receiving waters. Conversely, the benefits obtained 

through implementation of urban stormwater BMPs may be measured through a carefully 

designed water quality monitoring program. Accordingly, projects must include a plan to 

measure outcomes by employing either a monitoring or modeling plan to most accurately and 

efficiently measure project outcomes (i.e. lbs of nutrients removed). Projects must report these 

outcomes back to appropriate State/District agencies and provide details regarding long-term 

plans for implementation, management, and/or modeling if applicable. 

In addition to measuring environmental results, applicants should also provide information on 

how they intend to measure other outputs anticipated from projects (e.g., meetings with farmers 

to discuss BMP implementation). 

Section IV: Interviews Specific to State Tributary Strategies 

Are you familiar with the state Tributary Strategies developed to target implementation of 

nutrient and sediment reductions for improved water quality? In considering a project’s 

effectiveness in reducing nutrients, benefits to both local water quality and the Bay will be 

considered. Applicants are encouraged to review the various state Tributary Strategies which 

outline the specific reductions of pollutant loads needed to meet Bay water quality standards. 

Please note that funds granted under this program may not be used to support political advocacy, 

lobbying or litigation.

How can your program guidance/rules be improved to better focus on tributary strategies?

NA 

How can states and local stakeholders improve ability to compete with others to increase 

the % of funds being awarded to tributary strategy implementation? NA 

Are there examples of using these funds to help access additional funding (leveraging)? 

Under the grant, NFWF stated that one of their goals in administering the program was to 

leverage additional funding. In FY2005, they partnered with the Chesapeake Bay Trust and 

leveraged an additional $600,000 for projects in MD. 
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 

Section 510 Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration Protection Program 

 

Section I: Program Overview

Funding Program Name: Section 510, Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and 

Protection Program 

Agency: US Army Corps of Engineers 

Division: North Atlantic Division, Baltimore District

Contact information: Steve Garbarino, 410-962-6114

Established: Section 510 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 

Description: Available to provide environmental design and construction assistance to nonFederal interests in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. At least one project shall be established in 

each of the collaborating states (PA, MD, VA). Projects completed thus far include wastewater 

treatment plant upgrades, shoreline protection and stabilization, wetland restoration, and oyster 

restoration. 

Section II: Funding Availability 

When is funding Available? Funds are available as Congress appropriates funds each year. 

However, program is authorized to $10M and projects currently underway will utilize remaining 

funds, unless program limit is raised. 

Who is eligible? Cost sharing partners in MD, PA, or VA. Cost sharing partners include states, 

counties, and similar entities. 

Amount of Assistance provided for FY06? $2M 

Amount of Assistance 2005? (See Appendix C) $1.182 Million direct spending. 

Cost Share Requirements: Design and construction costs will be cost-shared at 75% Federal 

(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and 25% non-Federal (sponsor). Non-Federal share must be 

provided as cash or real estate credits. 

Authority: Authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 to $10M 

Funding criteria/rating system: The project must be beneficial to the Chesapeake Bay, in the 

Federal interest, and supported by a non-Federal sponsor. 

More detailed information can be viewed at: http://www.usace.army.mil/cw/cecwp/leg_manage/pdf/22Oct01HansenHRes.PDF. 

Section III: Funding Distribution Question and Answer 

56
57

How do the HQ offices (Washington DC) determine the distribution of funds among the 

Regional offices? Factsheets (decision documents) are prepared for each project and approved 

by Corps HQ. 

How much discretion do regional offices/lead agencies have in the distribution of funds to 

states, localities or watershed organizations? The Baltimore District coordinates with VA, 

MD, and PA to determine priority projects. 

How are priorities set for the distribution of funds in regional/lead offices? Is their a 

formula for how it is distributed? Is there a priorities list of objectives or projects targeted? 

Thus far, there has not been a backlog of projects. Projects are implemented on a first-come, 

first-serve basis if they meet the funding criteria above. A prioritization system is in place for 

if/when the funding limit of $10M is raised. Prioritization would be given to projects with the 

most environmental benefit for the least cost, and are sustainable.

Is their a guidance document that guide applicants that is provided? If so, how often is it 

published and who is responsible for distribution and content? NA—The Baltimore District 

coordinates with potential sponsors and submits the factsheet to HQ for approval. 

If not how do applicants get word of what is available and for what purpose? NA 

How are selections made? See criteria above. 

Are their regional or geographic areas that are targeted? If not, why? Chesapeake Bay 

watershed within PA, MD, and VA. 

What was the distribution of funds last year (who got the money by sector)? PA and MD 

received funds based on the respective project phases (PA project in design, MD project in 

construction). 

Is it possible to determine watershed areas that were targeted? NA 

What type of environmental results (outcomes) are included in award documents? NA 

Section IV: Interviews Specific to State Tributary Strategies 

Are you familiar with the state Tributary Strategies developed to target implementation of 

nutrient and sediment reductions for improved water quality? Yes

How can your program guidance/rules be improved to better focus on tributary strategies? 

Funding limit must be raised to provide for more projects focused on tributary strategy 

implementation. 

How can states and local stakeholders improve ability to compete with others to increase 

the % of funds being awarded to tributary strategy implementation? Recommend projects 

with large environmental benefits to the Baltimore District. 

Are there examples of using these funds to help access additional funding 

(leveraging)? Possibly by the non-Federal sponsors. 
 

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 

Section 219 Environmental Infrastructure

Section I: Program Overview: 

Funding Program Name: Section 219, Environmental Infrastructure

Agency: US Army Corps of Engineers

Division: North Atlantic Division, Baltimore District 

Contact information: Mary Y. Dan, 410-962-3377 

Established: Section 219 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992, as amended 

Description: Provides assistance to local communities for water- and sewer-related 

infrastructure such as water and sewer lines and treatment facilities 

Section II: Funding Availability 

When is funding available? As Congress appropriates funds each year 

Who is eligible? Eligible counties in Pennsylvania are as stated in authorization. Cost sharing 

partners include townships, counties, and water/sewer authorities

Amount of Assistance provided for FY06 in PA: $1.95M 

Amount of Assistance provided in 2005 PA? (See Appendix C) $1.1M included as direct 

spending in the Chesapeake Bay Federal Spending Inventory 

Cost Share Requirements: Project costs are cost-shared at 75% Federal (U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers) and 25% non-Federal (sponsor). Local share can be provided in cash or real estate 

credits. 

Authority: Authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 to $20M 

Funding criteria/rating system: The project must be allowable and allocable within project 

authorization and able to be financed by the local sponsor. 

Section III: Funding Distribution Question and Answer 

How do the HQ offices (Washington DC) determine the distribution of funds among the 

Regional offices? Fact sheets are prepared for each project and approved by Corps HQ. 

How much discretion do regional offices/lead agencies have in the distribution of funds to 

states, localities or watershed organizations? The Baltimore District coordinates with 

potential sponsors in PA to determine priority projects. 

How are priorities set for the distribution of funds in regional/lead offices? Is there a 

formula for how it is distributed? Is there a priorities list of objectives or projects targeted? 

Projects are implemented on a first-come, first-serve basis if they meet the funding criteria 

58
59

above. Prioritization would be given to projects that are in compliance with NEPA, have secured 

HQ approval to execute a Project Cooperation Agreement, and have sponsor funds in-hand.

Is there a guidance document provided to guide applicants? NA—The Baltimore District 

coordinates with potential sponsors and submits the factsheet to HQ for approval. 

If not, how do applicants get word of what is available and for what purpose? Interested 

sponsors coordinate with their local congressman. 

How are selections made? See criteria above. 

Are there regional or geographic areas that are targeted? Stated in authorization

What was the distribution of funds last year (who got the money by sector)? PA 

Is it possible to determine watershed areas that were targeted? NA 

What type of environmental results (outcomes) are included in award documents? NA

Section IV: Interviews Specific to State Tributary Strategies 

Are you familiar with the state Tributary Strategies developed to target implementation of 

nutrient and sediment reductions for improved water quality? Yes 

How can your program guidance/rules be improved to better focus on tributary strategies? 

NA

How can states and local stakeholders improve ability to compete with others to increase 

the % of funds being awarded to tributary strategy implementation? NA

Are there examples of using these funds to help access additional funding (leveraging)? 

Possibly by the non-Federal sponsors.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 

Section 313 South Central Pennsylvania Environmental Improvement Program 

Section I: Program Overview

Funding Program Name: Section 313, South Central Pennsylvania Environmental 

Improvement Program 

Agency: US Army Corps of Engineers

Division: North Atlantic Division, Baltimore District

Contact information: Kevin Brennan 410-962-6113 

Established: Section 313 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 

Description: The Section 313 program provides environmental assistance to non-Federal public 

interests in south central Pennsylvania. Such assistance may be in the form of design and 

construction assistance for water related environmental infrastructure and resource protection 

and development projects, including projects for wastewater treatment and related facilities, 

water supply, storage, treatment and distribution facilities, and surface water resource protection 

and development. 

Section II: Funding Availability 

When is funding Available? Availability is based on Congressional appropriations each year. 

Who is eligible? Public cost sharing partners in Armstrong, Bedford, Blair, Cambria, Clearfield, 

Fayette, Franklin, Fulton, Huntingdon, Indiana, Juniata, Miller, Snyder , Somerset Counties, PA. 

Cost sharing partners include County, Townships, Municipal Authorities, Boroughs, and similar 

entities. 

Amount of Assistance provided for FY06 CB Watershed? $4.4M

Amount of Assistance provided in 2005? (See Appendix C) $3.5M 

Cost Share Requirements: Design and construction costs will be cost-shared at 75% Federal 

(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and 25% non-Federal (sponsor). 

Authority: Authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 

Funding criteria/rating system: Project must be water related infrastructure supported by the 

local Congressional interests, in the Federal interest, and supported by a non-Federal sponsor. 

Section III: Funding Distribution Question and Answer 

How do the HQ offices (Washington DC) determine the distribution of funds among the 

Regional offices? This is a Congressionally added program and funds are divided 50-50 

between the Chesapeake and Ohio watersheds. 

How much discretion do regional offices/lead agencies have in the distribution of funds to 

states, localities or watershed organizations? The Baltimore District coordinates with 

potential sponsors in eligible PA counties. 

60
61

How are priorities set for the distribution of funds in regional/lead offices? Is their a 

formula for how it is distributed? Is there a priorities list of objectives or projects targeted? 

N/A

Is their a guidance document that guide applicants that is provided? If so, how often is it 

published and who is responsible for distribution and content? NA

If not how do applicants get word of what is available and for what purpose? Coordination 

with the Congressional interests is recommended. 

How are selections made? See criteria above. 

Are their regional or geographic areas that are targeted? If not, why? Yes, the program 

authority specifies certain counties in Pennsylvania 

What was the distribution of funds last year (who got the money by sector)? This program 

is exclusive to the specific Counties in Pennsylvania identified above. 

Is it possible to determine watershed areas that were targeted? NA 

What type of environmental results (outcomes) are included in award documents? NA 

Section IV: Interviews Specific to State Tributary Strategies 

Are you familiar with the state Tributary Strategies developed to target implementation of 

nutrient and sediment reductions for improved water quality? Yes

How can your program guidance/rules be improved to better focus on tributary strategies? 

Funding limit must be raised to provide for more projects focused on tributary strategy 

implementation. 

How can states and local stakeholders improve ability to compete with others to increase 

the % of funds being awarded to tributary strategy implementation? N/A 

Are there examples of using these funds to help access additional funding (leveraging)? 

Possibly by the non-Federal sponsors.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Federal Assistance to State Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs 

Section I: Program Overview 

Funding Program Name: Federal Assistance to State Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration 

Programs 

Agency: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Division: Federal Assistance to State Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs 

Contact information: USFWS, Div. of Federal Assistance, 300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, 

MA 01035 413-253-8508

Established: 1937

Description: The Program administers several grant-in-aid programs to State fish and wildlife 

agencies, including Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration, Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish 

Restoration, State Wildlife Grants, Landowner Incentive Program, Clean Vessel Act, and 

Boating Infrastructure Grants. Section 6 Endangered Species and National Coastal Wetlands 

Conservation grants are co-administered in collaboration with the Service’s Ecological Services 

program. 

Section II: Funding Availability 

When is funding Available? Funding is available annually. Wildlife Restoration and Sport Fish 

Restoration are permanently-funded formula-driven non-competitive apportionment programs. 

State Wildlife Grants are appropriated annually to States via a formula. The remaining programs 

are competitive. Apportioned programs typically mid-winter; competitive programs mid- to latesummer. 

Who is eligible? The State Fish and Wildlife Agency for Wildlife Restoration, Sport Fish 

Restoration, Endangered Species, State Wildlife Grants, and Landowner Incentive Program. For 

the Coastal Wetlands and Clean Vessel Act programs, any State agency designated by the 

governor of a coastal state. A coastal state is any state that borders the Great Lakes, the Arctic, 

Atlantic or Pacific Oceans, Long Island Sound, or the Gulf of Mexico. Anyone can apply for a 

Boating Infrastructure Grant with authority from State government.

Amount of Assistance provided for FY06 in MD, PA, VA, DC, DE, WV, NY CB 

Watershed? 

MD: $5,144,584 

PA: $17,836,547 

VA: $10,406,824 

DC: $1,271,167 

DE: $4,884,192 

WV: $6,236,049 

NY: $16,612,160 

Amount of Assistance provided in past three years to CB watershed per state? 

Not available 

62

2005 Federal Spending Inventor (Appendix C): $1,614,624 included in direct spending. 
63

Cost Share Requirements: Variable per program: 75F/25S for Wildlife and Sport Fish 

Restoration, Endangered Species, Clean Vessel Act, Boating Infrastructure, and Landowner 

Incentive Program; 50F/50S for State Wildlife Grant implementation and 75F/25S for planning; 

50F/50S for Coastal Wetlands, except when criteria for establishment of a State dedicated fund 

are met, the match is reduced to 25%.

Authority: 

50 CFR Part 80 

50 CFR Part 81 

50 CFR Part 84 

50 CFR Part 85 

50 CFR Part 86 

Interior Appropriations Legislation 

Funding criteria/rating system: Criteria are described in enabling laws and regulations cited 

above. 

______________________________________________________________________ 

Section III: Funding Distribution Question and Answer 

How do the HQ offices (Washington DC) determine the distribution of funds among the 

Regional offices? 

Funds for non-competitive programs are apportioned to individual States based on a national 

formula. Competitive program awards are made to individual states. Section 6 Endangered 

Species awards are provided to Regional offices based on a formula that considers numbers of 

listed species. 

How much discretion do regional offices/lead agencies have in the distribution of funds to 

states, localities or watershed organizations? 

Little to no discretion on award amounts. 

How are priorities set for the distribution of funds in regional/lead offices? Is their a 

formula for how it is distributed? Is there a priorities list of objectives or projects targeted? 

Eligibility criteria are provided in the federal rules and enabling legislation governing the 

individual programs.

Is their a guidance document that guide applicants that is provided? If so, how often is it 

published and who is responsible for distribution and content? 

Guidance is found at http://training.fws.gov 

If not how do applicants get word of what is available and for what purpose? 

Grants.Gov 

How are selections made? 

Awards are made based on eligibility, substantiality, and compliance with federal regulations as 

provided for in enabling laws and rules. 

Are their regional or geographic areas that are targeted? If not, why? 

No, with the exception of the Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Clean Vessel Act programs. 

What was the distribution of funds last year (who got the money by sector)? 
64

Is it possible to determine watershed areas that were targeted? 

No. 

What type of environmental results (outcomes) are included in award documents? 

Proposals must identify expected results and benefits. These are evaluated to ensure they are 

consistent with goals of the grant program in question, and commensurate with proposed costs. 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act) 

Grant Programs 

Section I: Program Overview

Funding Program Name: Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (Section 6 of 

the Endangered Species Act) Grant Programs 

Agency: U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 

Division: 

Contact information: 

Established: 

Description: The Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (CESCF) (Section 6 of 

the Endangered Species Act) provides funding to States and Territories for species and habitat 

conservation actions on non-Federal lands. States and Territories must contribute a minimum 

non-Federal match of 25% for the estimated program costs of approved projects, or 10% when 

two or more States or Territories implement a joint project. A State or Territory must currently 

have, or enter into a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to 

receive grant funds. 

Four grant programs are available through the CESCF, they include the “Traditional” 

Conservation Grants and the “Nontraditional” Habitat Conservation Plan Land Acquisition, 

Habitat Conservation Planning Assistance, and Recovery Land Acquisition Grants. 

“Traditional” Conservation Grants - The Conservation Grants program provides financial 

assistance to States to implement conservation projects for listed species and species at-risk. 

Funded activities include habitat restoration, species status surveys, public education, and 

outreach, captive propagation and reintroduction, nesting surveys, genetic studies, and 

development of management plans. The project selection process is generally conducted by 

Service Endangered Species staff in conjunction with the States. Funding is allocated by formula 

to the Service Regions based on the number of species covered in the cooperative agreements 

with the States within that Region. Regional offices then further allocate the funding to the States 

within that Region by formula or through a competitive process. 

“Nontraditional” Programs: 

Habitat Conservation Planning (HCP) Assistance Grants - Through the development of 

regional Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs), local governments incorporate species conservation 

into local land use planning, which streamlines the project approval process and facilitates 

economic development. The Habitat Conservation Planning Assistance Grants program provides 

funding to States to support the development of HCPs. Planning assistance grants may support 

planning activities such as document preparation, outreach, and baseline surveys, and 

inventories. Proposals for amendments to existing HCPs will not be accepted. The Habitat 

Conservation Planning Assistance Grants program first received funding in fiscal year 2001 of 

$6.635 million. In FY 2005, the Service awarded full or partial funding to 22 out of 29 eligible 

proposals to provide project funding in 14 States. The funding for the Habitat Conservation 

Planning Assistance Grants is competed for at the National level. 

65
66

Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) Land Acquisition Grants - The HCP Land Acquisition 

program was established by Congress in fiscal year 1997. This program was designed to reduce 

conflicts between the conservation of listed species and land uses on specific parcels of land. 

Under this program, the Service provides grants to States for land acquisitions that are associated 

with approved HCPs. The Service considers the use of Federal acquisition dollars by States for 

habitat protection within and adjacent to HCP areas to be an important and effective mechanism 

to promote the recovery of threatened and endangered species. 

The HCP Land Acquisition program has three primary purposes: 1) to fund land acquisitions that 

complement, but do not replace, private mitigation responsibilities contained in HCPs, 2) to fund 

land acquisitions that have important benefits for listed, proposed, and candidate species, and 3) 

to fund land acquisitions that have important benefits for ecosystems that support listed, 

proposed and candidate species. 

Recovery Land Acquisition Grants - Loss of habitat is the primary threat to most listed species 

and land acquisition is often the most effective and efficient means of protecting habitats 

essential for recovery of listed species before development or other land use changes impair or 

destroy key habitat values. Land acquisition is costly and often neither the Service nor the States 

individually have the necessary resources to acquire habitats essential for recovery of listed 

species. Recovery Land Acquisition grant funds are matched by States and non-federal entities to 

acquire these habitats from willing sellers in support of approved species recovery plans. 

Because the existing HCP Land Acquisition Grants Program provides substantial funding for 

land acquisitions associated with HCPs, the Recovery Land Acquisition Grants Program will not 

be used to fund land acquisitions associated with permitted HCPs. 

The Recovery Land Acquisition Grant program first received funding in fiscal year 2001 of 

$10.427 million. In FY 2005, the program awarded approximately $13 million in funding to 28 

projects in 20 States, with at least one proposal funded in each Service region. For fiscal year 

2006, competition for the Recovery Land Acquisition grants will be held at the Regional level. 

Section II: Funding Availability 

When is funding Available? Information not available 

Who is eligible? Participation in the CESCF programs is limited to State agencies that have a 

current cooperative agreement with the Secretary of the Interior. That is, only State agencies that 

have a cooperative agreement with the Secretary of the Interior may apply directly for CESCF 

grant funding. However, individuals or groups (for example land conservancies, community 

organizations, or conservation organizations) may work with a State organization that has a 

cooperative agreement, on conservation efforts that are mutually beneficial, as a subgrantee. 

Grant agreements will be used to implement selected projects. 

More information on all four grant programs go to: 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/grants/section6/index.html

Amount of Assistance provided for FY06 in MD, PA, VA, DC, DE, WV, NY CB 

Watershed? 

Amount of Assistance provided in past three years to CB watershed per state? The program 

received $6 million in appropriated funds in each of its first 3 years (fiscal years 1997-1999). In 

fiscal year 2005, we received approximately $48 million and fully or partially funded 10 out of 
67

18 eligible proposals. A National competition will be held to select proposals for funding in FY 

2006. 

Cost Share Requirements: A proposal must include 25 percent non-Federal cost share (the 

cost-share may be an in-kind contribution, including equipment, materials, operations, and 

maintenance costs). This cost share decreases to 10 percent if 2 or more States or Territories are 

contributors to the proposal and its activities as per section 6 of the ESA. 

As defined in the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual (521 FW 4.9), States may increase the rate 

of Federal participation from 75 percent to 90 percent of total grant costs when two or more 

States cooperate to conserve an endangered or threatened species of common interest [50 CFR 

81.8(a)]. 

Authority: The CESCF programs are authorized through Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 

U.S.C. 1361 et seq., as amended. The codified program regulations can be found at 50 CFR 81. 

 

Section 6 can be viewed at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/ESA.html#Lnk06
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

State Wildlife Grants 

Section I: Program Overview

Funding Program Name: State Wildlife Grants 

Agency: U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 

Division: 

Contact information: Genevieve Pullis-LaRouche LaRouche, 4401 N. 

Fairfax Drive, Room 4020, Arlington, VA 

22203. Email: genevieve_larouche 

@fws.gov. Phone: 703/358 1854. 

Fax: 703/358 1837.

Established: Congress created the program in 2000. Funds appropriated under the State Wildlife 

Grants Program are allocated to every state according to a formula based on each state’s size and 

population.

Description: The State Wildlife Grants Program provides federal dollars to every state and 

territory to support cost-effective conservation aimed at preventing wildlife from becoming 

endangered. The purpose is for states and territories to develop and implement programs for the 

benefit of wildlife and their habitat, including species that are not hunted or fished. 

Section II: Funding Availability 

When is funding Available?Annual appropriations with continous grant cycle throughout 

the year. 

Who is eligible? State and Territory. Each state/territory is required to submitted a 

comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy plan if they accept funding from this program. 

Amount of Assistance provided for FY06 ? $61,521,358 nationally. 

Amount of Assistance provided in past three years to CB watershed per state (figures are 

entire state and not CB watershed based? 

 Enacted FY01-07 Enacted FY07 

Maryland $5,562,537 $779,389 

Pennsylvania $13,846,765 $1,940,127 

Virginia $8,633,330 $1,209,668 

District of Columbia $2,125,261 $297,779 

Delaware $4,250,522 $595,557 

New York $20,454,729 $2,865,971 

West Virginia $4,250,522 $595,557 

68

Cost Share Requirements: For planning-related grant activities, the States, the District of 

Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico must provide a minimum 25 percent match 

and a 50 percent minimum match for all other types of eligible activities. The U.S. Virgin 

Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands do not have to provide 

matching funds. 
69

Authority: House Joint Resolution 20 authorizes 2007 appropriations at the level specified in 

the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 

For more information, go to: http://federalaid.fws.gov/swg/swg.html#Authorization 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) 

Section I: Program Overview

Funding Program Name: Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) 

Agency: NOAA 

Division: National Ocean Service, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, Coastal 

Programs Division

Contact information: John Kuriawa (410.267.5668)

Established: 1972

Description: The National Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program is a voluntary 

partnership between the federal government and U.S. coastal states and territories authorized by 

the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. The Coastal Programs Division, within the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, 

administers the program at the federal level and works with state coastal zone management 

partners to: 

• Preserve, protect, develop, and, where possible, restore and enhance the resources of the 

nation's coastal zone for this and succeeding generations; 

• Encourage and assist the states to exercise effectively their responsibilities in the coastal 

zone to achieve wise use of land and water resources, giving full consideration to 

ecological, cultural, historic, and aesthetic values, as well as the need for compatible 

economic development; 

• Encourage the preparation of special area management plans to provide increased 

specificity in protecting significant natural resources, reasonable coastal-dependent 

economic growth, improved protection of life and property in hazardous areas and 

improved predictability in governmental decision-making; and 

• Encourage the participation, cooperation, and coordination of the public, federal, state, 

local, interstate and regional agencies, and governments affecting the coastal zone. 

Thirty-four coastal and Great Lakes states, territories and commonwealths have approved coastal 

management programs. Together, these programs protect more than 99 percent of the nation's 

95,331 miles of ocean and Great Lakes coastline. 

To comprehensively manage the Nation’s coastal resources and balance often competing land 

and water uses while protecting sensitive resources, state and territorial coastal zone 

management programs are expected to: 

• Protect natural resources; 

• Manage development in high hazard areas; 

• Manage development to achieve quality coastal waters; 

• Give development priority to coastal-dependent uses; 

• Have orderly processes for the siting of major facilities; 

• Locate new commercial and industrial development in, or adjacent to, existing developed 

areas; 

• Provide public access for recreation; 

70

• Redevelop underutilized or abandoned urban waterfronts and ports, 
71

• Preserve and restore historic, cultural, and aesthetic coastal features; 

• Simplify and expedite governmental decision-making actions; 

• Coordinate state and federal actions; 

• Give adequate consideration to the views of federal agencies; 

• Assure that the public and local governments have a say in coastal decision-making; and 

• Comprehensively plan for and manage living marine resources. 

Section II: Funding Availability 

When is funding Available? Funding to the state is available from NOAA annually. Funds are 

allocated through cooperative agreements to the states which are issued by the NOAA Grants 

Management Division on either July 1 or October 1 of each year. 

Disbursement of funds from the state to local or other recipients is dependent upon State 

priorities, allocation processes and/or RFPs. 

Who is eligible? Only lead CZM Agencies of States and Territories with federally approved 

CZM Programs are eligible to receive cooperative agreements from NOAA. However, the lead 

CZM agency can pass through funds to other state, regional agencies or local governments 

identified to implement the program. In some instances the lead agency can pass through funds 

to NGOs (e.g., watershed groups), Academic institutions and other recipients depending upon the 

activity and specifics of the RFP used.

Amount of Assistance provided for FY06 in MD, PA, VA, DC, DE, WV, NY CB 

Watershed? (Not included in Appendix C spending) 

MD – $2,788,000 

PA – $2,227,000 

VA – $2,803,000 

DC – 0 

DE – $1,497,000 

WV – 0 

NY – $2,718,000 

Amount of Assistance provided in past three years to CB watershed per state? This 

information is not likely tracked consistently by the States in the CB watershed, however, for the 

primary two states (MD and VA), nearly the entire coastal zone boundary lies within the CB 

watershed, so the total amount of annual funds can serve as a reasonable proxy.

Cost Share Requirements: For CZMA Section 306/306A and 310 (Coastal Nonpoint 

Implementation funds) a 1:1 match is required. For CZMA Section 309 funds no match is 

required.

Authority: Sections 306, 306A, 309, and 310 of the CZMA and amendments (16 USC §1451 

et. al.) 

Funding criteria/rating system: NOAA allocates federal CZMA funds among eligible states 

and territories using a formula based on shoreline mileage and population. Each state CZM 

Agency has unique allocation processes depending upon priorities. 

______________________________________________________________________________ 
72

Section III: Funding Distribution Question and Answer 

How do the HQ offices (Washington DC) determine the distribution of funds among the 

Regional offices? There are no regional offices at NOAA involved in the distribution of funds.

How much discretion do regional offices/lead agencies have in the distribution of funds to 

states, localities or watershed organizations? State coastal programs receive the federal funds 

and have discretion in their distribution.

How are priorities set for the distribution of funds in regional/lead offices? Is their a 

formula for how it is distributed? Is there a priorities list of objectives or projects targeted? 

Federal funds are distributed to all participating coastal states and territories with approved 

coastal programs based on their size (miles of shoreline) and population. The statute contains 

maximum allowable amounts, which many states now receive. With regard to Coastal Nonpoint 

Program funding, NOAA has set some priorities for the Section 310 funding, such as promoting 

the development and implementation of “Clean Marina Programs,” but these “recommended 

focus areas” are not absolute determinates of funding. 

Is their a guidance document that guide applicants that is provided? If so, how often is it 

published and who is responsible for distribution and content? Yes, annual funding 

guidance and allocations are published. In addition, there is guidance associated with each of the 

authorizing sections of the CZMA. NOAA (OCRM) is responsible for its distribution and 

content. 

If not how do applicants get word of what is available and for what purpose? 

How are selections made? Selections are made by the coastal states and territories, not NOAA.

Are their regional or geographic areas that are targeted? If not, why? Varies by state.

What was the distribution of funds last year (who got the money by sector)? Not tracked.

Is it possible to determine watershed areas that were targeted? Yes, for states that are 

supporting watershed-oriented work. 

What type of environmental results (outcomes) are included in award documents? 

CZMA Performance Indicators are in the development process and will be integrated into award 

documents and grant progress reports as data becomes available. 

Section IV: Interviews Specific to State Tributary Strategies 

Are you familiar with the state Tributary Strategies developed to target implementation of 

nutrient and sediment reductions for improved water quality? Yes

How can your program guidance/rules be improved to better focus on tributary strategies? 

Coastal states determine their priorities in consultation with NOAA. Current CZMA guidance 

provides the necessary discretion to allow expenditures on tributary strategies, if those strategies 

are determined to be a coastal program priority by a particular state. Maryland, for example, has 

used CZMA funds to support tributary strategies. 
73

How can states and local stakeholders improve ability to compete with others to increase 

the % of funds being awarded to tributary strategy implementation? 

Decisions regarding the % of funding directed toward specific programs or issues are determined 

by the states with advice from NOAA. 

Are there examples of using these funds to help access additional funding (leveraging)? All 

of the NOAA CZMA funds are leveraged.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA 

National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) Coastal Zone 

Management Act (CZMA) 

Section I: Program Overview: 

Funding Program Name: National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) Coastal Zone 

Management Act (CZMA) 

Agency: NOAA

Division: National Ocean Service, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, 

Estuarine Reserves Division

Contact information: Cory Riley (603) 862-2813 

Established: 1985 (Monie Bay) 1990 (Jug Bay and Otter Point Creek)

Description: The National Estuarine Research Reserves System is a network of 27 areas 

representing different biogeographic regions of the United States that are protected for long-term 

research, water-quality monitoring, education and coastal stewardship. Established by the 

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, the reserve system is a partnership program 

between the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the coastal states. NOAA 

provides funding, national guidance and technical assistance. Each reserve is managed on daily 

basis by a lead state agency or university, with input from local partners.

Reserve staff work with local communities and regional groups to address natural resource 

management issues, such as non-point source pollution, habitat restoration and invasive species. 

Through integrated research and education, the reserves help communities develop strategies to 

deal successfully with these coastal resource issues. Reserves provide adult audiences with 

training on estuarine issues of concern in their local communities. They offer field classes for K12 students and support teachers through professional development programs in marine 

education. Reserves also provide long-term water quality monitoring as well as opportunities for 

both scientists and graduate students to conduct research in a “living laboratory.”

Goals and objectives for the National Estuarine Research Reserve System for 2005-2010 include: 

GOAL 1: Strengthen the protection and management of representative estuarine ecosystems 

to advance estuarine conservation, research and education. 

Objectives

1. Biogeographically and typologically representative estuarine ecosystems are protected 

through the designation of new reserves. 

2. Biological, chemical, physical, and community conditions of reserves are characterized 

and monitored to describe reference conditions and to quantify change. 

3. Reserve ecosystems are conserved through land acquisition, natural resource 

management and restoration 

GOAL 2: Increase the use of reserve science and sites to address priority coastal management 

issues. 

74

Objectives
75

1. Scientists conduct estuarine research at reserves that is relevant to coastal management 

needs. 

2. Scientists have access to NERRS datasets, science products and results. 

3. The scientific community uses data, tools and techniques generated at the NERRS. 

GOAL 3: Enhance people’s ability and willingness to make informed decisions and take 

responsible actions that affect coastal communities and ecosystems. 

Objectives

1. People are aware of the ecological, economic, historical, and cultural importance of 

estuarine resources. 

2. People understand how human choices and natural disturbances impact social, economic, 

and estuarine ecological systems. 

3. People apply science-based information when making decisions that could impact coastal 

and estuarine resources. 

Section II: Funding Availability 

When is funding Available? Funding to the state is available from NOAA annually. Funds are 

allocated through cooperative agreements to the states which are issued by the NOAA Grants 

Management Division on either July 1, August 1, September 1 or October 1 of each year. 

Who is eligible? Lead state agencies of a designated National Estuarine Research Reserve. 

Amount of Assistance provided for FY06 in MD, PA, VA, DC, DE, WV, NY CB 

Watershed? (Not included in Appendix C spending) 

MD – $470,000 

PA – 0 

VA – $560,000 

DC – 0 

DE – $470,000 

WV – 0 

NY – $560,000 

Amount of Assistance provided in past three years to CB watershed per state? 

The Maryland NERR and the Virginia NERR are both within the CB watershed. The DE and NY 

NERRs are not. 

2004 

MD-$555,000 

VA- $555,000 

2005 

MD-$465,000 

VA- $555,000 

2006 

MD-$470,000 
76

VA-$560,000 

Cost Share Requirements: For CZMA Section 315 NERRS operations and land acquisition 

awards there is a 70:30 federal/state match requirement. For NERRS land acquisition funding 

there is a 50:50 federal/state match requirement. 

Authority: Section 315 of the CZMA and amendments (16 USC §1451 et. al.) 

Funding criteria/rating system: Each reserve is eligible for a maximum of $560,000 dollars in 

federal funding for operating the research, education, training and monitoring programs. A state 

may be eligible for less than this amount if they are not participating in system wide programs. 

Some years, additional funds are available for construction and land acquisition. Funding criteria 

for acquisition and construction awards are published each year in the Federal Register Notice. 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Section III: Funding Distribution Question and Answer 

How do the HQ offices (Washington DC) determine the distribution of funds among the 

Regional offices? There are no regional offices at NOAA involved in the distribution of funds.

How much discretion do regional offices/lead agencies have in the distribution of funds to 

states, localities or watershed organizations? Lead state agencies receive the federal funds 

and have discretion in their distribution. Reserve funding must be spent on reserve research, 

education, training, monitoring, and operating costs. There are funding targets associated with 

some national programs (System Wide Monitoring Program and the Coastal Training Program). 

Acquisition funds must be spent on parcels that the state intends to incorporate into the NERRS 

boundary. Construction funds must be used on facilities that will be used by NERRS staff to 

further the goals set forth in their site management plan.

How are priorities set for the distribution of funds in regional/lead offices? Is their a 

formula for how it is distributed? Is there a priorities list of objectives or projects targeted? 

See previous response 

Is their a guidance document that guide applicants that is provided? If so, how often is it 

published and who is responsible for distribution and content? Yes, annual funding 

guidance and allocations are published. NOAA (OCRM) is responsible for its distribution and 

content. 

If not how do applicants get word of what is available and for what purpose? NA 

How are selections made? Selections are made by the coastal states and territories, not NOAA. 

Are their regional or geographic areas that are targeted? If not, why? 

National Estuarine Research Reserve funding must be spent on reserve activities. Research and 

monitoring funds must be used within NERR boundaries or for comparative research that 

supports understanding the reserve resources. 

What was the distribution of funds last year (who got the money by sector)? 

All NERRS funds go to the lead state agency. In Maryland, the lead agency is the Department of 

Natural Resources and in Virginia it is the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. 
77

Is it possible to determine watershed areas that were targeted? The Virginia NERR is 

focused on the York River watershed and the Maryland NERR works within the Patuxent River, 

Bush River and Monie Bay watersheds. 

What type of environmental results (outcomes) are included in award documents? NERR 

Performance Indicators are in the development process and will be integrated into award 

documents and grant progress reports as data becomes available.

Section IV: Interviews Specific to State Tributary Strategies 

Are you familiar with the state Tributary Strategies developed to target implementation of 

nutrient and sediment reductions for improved water quality? 

How can your program guidance/rules be improved to better focus on tributary strategies? 

How can states and local stakeholders improve ability to compete with others to increase 

the % of funds being awarded to tributary strategy implementation? 

Are there examples of using these funds to help access additional funding (leveraging)? All 

of the NOAA NERRS funds are leveraged.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP) 

Section I: Program Overview: 

Funding Program Name: Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP) 

Agency: NOAA 

Division: NOS/OCRM 

Contact information: Elisabeth Morgan, 301-563-1166, elisabeth.morgan@noaa.gov

Established: CELCP was created by the Fiscal Year 2002 Appropriations Act for the 

Departments of Commerce, Justice and State (Public Law 107-77). 

Description: The CELCP was established to help protect estuaries and coastal lands that are 

important to the nation’s environment, economy and communities. Such lands should have 

significant conservation, recreation, ecological, historical or aesthetic values, and be threatened 

by conversion from their natural or recreational state to other uses. Priority is given to lands with 

significant ecological value and that can be effectively managed and protected. Coastal states 

and local governments are eligible to receive funding for projects that ensure conservation of 

these areas in perpetuity. 

Section II: Funding Availability 

When is funding Available? Since FY02, all funding appropriated for this program has been 

earmarked. As a result, funds have not been available until after the annual appropriations bill is 

signed into law. Generally, application development occurs in the spring, with awards made in 

late summer/early fall. In FY06, Congress included report language in the Appropriations that 

directed NOAA to develop a list of projects that would be ready and eligible for funding in 

FY2007. NOAA issued an RFP in November 2005 with applications due at the end of the year. 

A ranked list of projects that met the program criteria was forwarded to Congress June 1, 2006. 

Who is eligible? State and municipal governments in coastal and Great Lake States or 

territories. 

Amount of Assistance provided for FY06 in MD, PA, VA, DC, DE, WV, NY CB 

Watershed? 

MD - $3,743,375 

VA - $2,386,401 

DE - $1,403,765 

Amount of Assistance provided in past three years to CB watershed per state? 

MD - $11,900,217 

VA - $6,887,270 

2005 Federal Spending Inventory (Appendix C): $12,502,087 included for MD and VA as 

indirect spending. 

Cost Share Requirements: 1:1 match is required. 

78
79

Authority: 16 USC 1456d 

Funding criteria/rating system: There is no funding criteria for projects that are earmarks. To 

select projects for the FY2007 list, NOAA developed a scoring system that evaluated projects for 

their relevance to the goals of the CELCP, technical and scientific merit, qualifications of the 

applicants, and the budget. 

Section III: Funding Distribution Question and Answer 

How do the HQ offices (Washington DC) determine the distribution of funds among the 

Regional offices? NOAA does not employ regional offices in the disbursement of CECLP funds. 

How much discretion do regional offices/lead agencies have in the distribution of funds to 

states, localities or watershed organizations? For earmarks, recipients and amount of funds 

are established by Congress. NOAA has some discretion in the use of the funds, and may deny 

projects or seek modifications if the original project proposal is not consistent with the intent of 

the CELCP or its guidelines. 

How are priorities set for the distribution of funds in regional/lead offices? Is there a 

formula for how it is distributed? Is there a priorities list of objectives or projects targeted? 

NA. However, State coastal zone management programs are in the process of developing 

CELCP plans that establish priority objectives for acquisition in the coastal zone, which would 

serve to guide the selection of projects to nominate for national competition, should funds 

become available for such purpose. 

Is their a guidance document that guide applicants that is provided? If so, how often is it 

published and who is responsible for distribution and content? The CELCP guidelines were 

published in the Federal Register in June 2003 and can be found at 

http://www.ocrm.nos.noaa.gov/landconservation.html. Recipients who are selected for earmarks 

also receive detailed application instructions from the lead office.

If not how do applicants get word of what is available and for what purpose? 

If competitive funds were made available, notice would be put in the Federal Register and also 

distributed by State Coastal Zone Management Programs. 

How are selections made? See above.

Are there regional or geographic areas that are targeted? If not, why? 

In general, coastal watersheds, nationally. Specific regions or areas within that are not targeted 

because NOAA does not have discretion in selecting projects for funding. 

What was the distribution of funds last year (who got the money by sector)? 

States: 13,258,981 

Locals 18,526,901 

Nonprofits 4,679,217 

Is it possible to determine watershed areas that were targeted? NA

What type of environmental results (outcomes) are included in award documents? NA
80

Section IV: Interviews Specific to State Tributary Strategies 

Are you familiar with the state Tributary Strategies developed to target implementation of 

nutrient and sediment reductions for improved water quality? Yes

How can your program guidance/rules be improved to better focus on tributary strategies? 

NA. However, States are encouraged to consider existing land conservation strategies developed 

by other programs when developing their CELCP plans.

How can states and local stakeholders improve ability to compete with others to increase 

the % of funds being awarded to tributary strategy implementation? NA

Are there examples of using these funds to help access additional funding (leveraging)? All 

CELCP grants involve leveraging due to the match requirement. 
U.S. Geological Survey 

Chesapeake Bay Studies 

Section I: Program Overview

Funding Program Name: Chesapeake Bay Studies

Agency: U.S. Geological Survey Chesapeake Bay Studies

Division: 

Contact information: Further information can be obtained from: http://chesapeake.usgs.gov/ 

Scott Phillips, swphilli@usgs.gov 

Established: 1996 

Overview of program: The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the science agency for the 

Department of Interior (DOI), has the critical role of providing objective science to document 

and understand ecosystem change in the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed. The USGS interacts 

with resource managers and policy makers to use the science to adapt approaches for 

implementation, and assess effectiveness of, management actions for ecosystem conservation, 

restoration and sustainability. The USGS is addressing four science themes: 

• Impact of human activities on land use; 

• Factors affecting water quality and quantity; 

• Ability of habitat to support fish and bird populations; and 

• Synthesis and forecasting to improve ecosystem assessment, conservation, and 

restoration. 

The USGS is addressing these themes through a combination of monitoring, modeling, research, 

and assessment, to provide science that can be used for more effective management actions to 

address the impact of human activities on the ecosystem. To provide technical assistance to 

partners the USGS will: (a) provide an improved understanding of the ecosystem to better target 

implementation of current conservation and restoration strategies, (b) assess ecosystem change to 

help evaluate the effectiveness of management activities, (c) forecast the potential impacts of 

increasing human population and climate variability, and (d) synthesize the findings and provide 

implications to help policy makers and resource managers adapt improved approaches for the 

ecosystem conservation, restoration, and sustainability. 

Section II: Funding Availability 

When is funding Available? 

The USGS has funding from 15 different programs to conduct its science and through the 

“cooperative water program” USGS funding is matched by State and local funds for USGS to 

address topics of concern to the Bay Program partners. Some of the primary activities are 

funding to implement the CBP nontidal water-quality monitoring network and assessment of the 

information for the effectiveness of the tributary strategies. 

Who is eligible? 

81
82

Amount of Assistance provided for FY06 in MD, PA, VA, DC, DE, WV, NY CB 

Watershed? (Federal spending inventory?) 

Any state or local government. 

Amount of Assistance provided in past three years to CB watershed per state? 

Cost Share Requirements: 

State and local governments much provide at least a 50 percent cost share. 

Authority: 

Funding criteria/rating system: 

______________________________________________________________________ 

Section IV: Interviews Specific to State Tributary Strategies 

Are you familiar with the state Tributary Strategies developed to target implementation of 

nutrient and sediment reductions for improved water quality? 

Yes 

How can your program guidance/rules be improved to better focus on tributary strategies? 

The USGS has refocused its science goals to have focus on science to better implement the 

tributary strategies. 

How can states and local stakeholders improve ability to compete with others to increase 

the % of funds being awarded to tributary strategy implementation? 

Are there examples of using these funds to help access additional funding (leveraging)? 

Leveraging funds to implement the CBP non-tidal water quality network to help assess waterquality improvements from the tributary strategies. 
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration 

Transportation Enhancements (TE's), Surface Transportation Program (STP) 

Section I: Program Overview 

Funding Program Name: Transportation Enhancements (TE's), Surface Transportation 

Program (STP)

Agency: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

Division: 

Contact information: 

Christopher Douwes, Trails and Enhancements Program Manager 

202 366-5013 

christopher.douwes@fhwa.dot.gov

Rob Draper, Byways, BikePed, Trails, and Enhancements Team Leader 

202 366-4649 

rob.draper@fhwa.dot.gov

John Fegan, Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Manager 

202 366-5007 

john.fegan@fhwa.dot.gov

Federal Highway Administration 

Office of Natural and Human Environment (HEPN-50) 

400 Seventh St SW Rm 3240 

Washington DC 20590 

Fax: 202-366-3409

Maryland: Dan Johnson, Environment & Planning Team Leader 

410-779-7154 

Virginia: Kenneth Myers, Planning & Environmental Program Manager 

804-775-3353 

Pennsylvania: Karyn Vandervoort, Environmental Team Leader 

717-221-2276 

District of Columbia: Michael Hicks, 202-219-3513 

Delaware: Robert Kleinburd, 302-734-2966 

New York: Chris Woods, Envrionmental Program Coordinator, 518-431-4125x255 

State contacts can be found at: http://www.enhancements.org/stateprofile.asp

Established: 1991 

Description: Transportation Enhancements (TE) activities offer communities funding 

opportunities to help expand transportation choices such as; safe bicycle and pedestrian facilities, 

scenic routes, beautification, and other investments that increase recreation opportunity and 

83
84

access. Communities may also use TE funds to contribute toward the revitalization of local and 

regional economies by restoring historic buildings, renovating streetscapes, or providing 

transportation museums and visitors centers. 

More information can be found at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/te/overview.htm

Section II: Funding Availability 

When is funding Available? Each state is different. For state specific information on funding, 

eligibility and contacts, see: http://www.enhancements.org/stateprofile.asp

Who is eligible? State Departments of Transportation. They distribute the money among local 

government or non-profits. 

Amount of Assistance provided for FY06 in CB Watershed? 

(figures are not watershed specific but statewide) 

MD- $12,304,109 

PA -$ 27,996,402 

VA - $21,785,382 

DC -$ 3,168,963

DE - $ 3,478,182

WV -$ 5,873,149 

NY -$ 28,923,049 

Source: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/te/apportionments.htm

Amount of Assistance provided in past three years to CB watershed per state? 

(Statewide, not watershed specific) 

2005 same as 2006 above 

 

1998-2004 

MD: $ 74,107,015 

PA: $ 164,728,852 

VA: $ 129,781,328 

DC: $ 20,180,317

DE: $ 23,213,878 

NY: $ 183,699,699 

WV: $ 36,681,237 

Cost Share Requirements: Most Federal-aid highway projects are funded with a maximum 80 

percent Federal contribution and require a 20 percent State and local match of Federal funds as 

set forth in 23 U.S.C. 120(b). However, this maximum share is adjusted for States with 

substantial Federal land holdings. For these States a sliding scale up to 95 percent Federal 

funding is determined according to the percentage of Federal land holdings in the State. 

Language included in TEA-21 provides an important exception regarding Federal share on TE 

projects. Section 1108(b)(2) of TEA-21 amended 23 U.S.C. 133(e)(5) to allow a State to use TE 

funds for up to 100 percent of the cost of individual projects without a corresponding match. 

However, for a fiscal year, the ratio of Federal funds to State match for all TE funded projects 
85

must comply with the maximum Federal share provisions in 23 U.S.C. 120(b). This amendment 

also provides some additional innovative features. 

Authority: Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21); P.L.105-178. 

Funding criteria/rating system: 

Only those projects that are listed in one of the 12 categories below are eligible for transportation 

enhancement funds. 

1. Provision of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles; 2. Provision of safety and educational 

activities for pedestrians and bicyclists; 3. Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic 

sites (including historic battlefields); 4. Scenic or historic highway programs (including the 

provision of tourist and welcome center facilities); 5. Landscaping and other scenic 

beautification; 6. Historic preservation.; 7. Rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation 

buildings, structures, or facilities (including historic railroad facilities and canals); 8. 

Preservation of abandoned railway corridors (including the conversion and use of the corridors 

for pedestrian or bicycle trails); 9. Inventory, control, and removal of outdoor advertising; 10. 

Archaeological planning and research. Research, preservation planning, and interpretation of 

archaeological artifacts; curation for artifacts related to surface transportation and artifacts 

recovered from locations within or along surface transportation corridors; 11. Environmental 

mitigation-- 

(i) to address water pollution due to highway runoff; or 

(ii) reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality while maintaining habitat connectivity; 12. 

Establishment of transportation museums. 

______________________________________________________________________ 

Section III: Funding Distribution Question and Answer 

How do the HQ offices (Washington DC) determine the distribution of funds among the 

Regional offices? The FHWA has a formula for the Surface Transportation funds that are 

annually distributed to the states. Of those funds, up to 10% is allowable for use under the 

Transportation Enhancement Program. 

How much discretion do regional offices/lead agencies have in the distribution of funds to 

states, localities or watershed organizations? Regional Office do not have discretion, 

however, individual states have authority to distribute among the 12 categories of funding. Of 

all the states, Maryland has been most supportive in using funds to address category 11, to 

address environmental mitigation and highway runoff. Maryland’s State Highway 

Administration, who administers the program is highly supported by the SHA Commissioner. 

This is the stated primary reason why they have been most successful with distributing funds to 

this category. MD SHA also examines the applications and determines if there is a place that the 

project would fit into their operations so that they can assist with matching funds. Matching 

funds are not always readily available at the local government level. These environmental 

mitigation projects are costly. The least expensive of these project started at $170,000. 

How are priorities set for the distribution of funds in regional/lead offices? Is their a 

formula for how it is distributed? Is there a priorities list of objectives or projects targeted? 

See categories above.

Is their a guidance document that guide applicants that is provided? If so, how often is it 

published and who is responsible for distribution and content? 
86

More information on guidance is available at: 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/te/overview.htm

If not how do applicants get word of what is available and for what purpose? 

Each state distributes application availability to the local governments that apply. 

How are selections made? 

Each state adheres to the category eligibility that is outlined by the Federal Highway 

administration. A technical review panel is used at the state level, and an executive review panel 

makes final decisions. 

Are their regional or geographic areas that are targeted? If not, why? 

What was the distribution of funds last year (who got the money by sector)? 

Is it possible to determine watershed areas that were targeted? 

What type of environmental results (outcomes) are included in award documents? 
Appendix A: Directive No. 04-2 Meeting the Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Goals –Next 

Steps 

Appendix A 

87
Appendix A 

88
Appendix A 

89
Appendix B: The Resolution to Enhance Federal Cooperation and Coordination 

Appendix B 

90
Appendix B 

91
Appendix B 

92
93

Appendix C: FY’05 Federal Spending Inventory 

Chesapeake Bay Program 

FY 2005 Federal Spending Inventory 

August 8, 2006 

The spending amounts listed in the table below are based upon data submitted to the 

Chesapeake Bay Program Office as a work product of the Federal Agencies Committee. 

Agencies are sorted from highest to lowest according to the amount of their direct spending 

toward all the various protection and restoration goals for living resources, vital habitat, water 

quality, sound land use and stewardship and community engagement outlined in the Chesapeake 

2000 agreement. 

Direct Spending1 Indirect Spending2 Total Spending 

USDA FSA $35,000,000 $7,000,000 $42,000,000 

USEPA2 $30,692,400 $52,474,509 $83,166,909 

USACE $24,283,000 $6,835,173 $31,118,173 

NOAA $15,383,598 $33,092,840 $48,476,438 

USDA NRCS $10,500,000 $75,888,141 $86,388,141 

DoI FWS $6,626,600 $8,311,974 $14,938,574 

DoI USGS $3,453,808 $710,787 $4,164,595 

DoI NPS $3,022,727 0 $3,022,727 

USDA FS $1,406,000 $6,728,000 $8,134,000 

DoD Navy $543,932 $10,867,800 $11,411,732 

DoD Army $263,563 $361,073 $624,636 

DoD Air Force 0 $17,465,000 $17,465,000 

USDA ARS 0 $5,392,000 $5,392,000 

USCG1 - - - 

NASA 0 $227,000 $227,000 

GSA 0 0 0 

Total Spending $131,175,628 $225,354,297 $356,529,925 

1 No data provided as of 8/30/06. 

2

 Includes Clean Water Act State Revolving Fund loans for PS and NPS projects. 

 

1

 Direct spending is defined as funds spent exclusively on Bay restoration (e.g., increasing the oyster population or 

monitoring SAV acreage) or that would cease to exist in the absence of the restoration effort. 

2

 Indirect spending is defined as funds that are not spent exclusively on Bay restoration (e.g., activities that may be 

considered normal agency operations) and would continue to exist in the absence of the restoration effort. 
Appendix D: Chesapeake 2000 Keystone Commitments 

94
Appendix E: Federal Spending on Keystone Commitment

Appendix E 

95
Appendix E 

96
Appendix E 

97
Appendix F: Chesapeake Executive Council: Federal Agencies Committee Tributary Strategy 

Backgrounder and Spending 

Appendix F 

98
Appendix F 

99
Appendix F 

100
Appendix F 

101