EPA FUNDSAVAILABLE FORFORESTRY PROJECTSState Foresters , Landowners , and Pr ivateOrganizat ions Are El igible

Managers of State and private forests as well as private organizations (forexample, conservation groups, water-shed councils, and environmentalorganizations) can use funding avail-able through the EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) for forestmanagement projects and practicesthat reduce water pollution.

As part of the Nation's 747 millionacres of forested land, State andprivate forests are important to theenvironment, especially waterquality. Besides providing habitat forwildlife, forests filter carbon dioxidefrom the air, and help prevent soilerosion. In addition, forest bufferstrips along streams and lakes can

significantly reduce the amount ofsedimentation and pollutantsreaching waterways.

Nonpoint source (NPS) pollution haslong been recognized as a leadingcause of water pollution. To helpreduce the negative effects that non-point source pollution has on waterquality, Congress has made fundsavailable to EPA. These funds are dis-tributed to States, tribes, and territo-ries to help achieve and maintainbeneficial uses of water, such asswimming or fishing. Since forestresource management and treeplanting projects can help curb NPSpollution, they are eligible for fund-ing. To take advantage of this fund-ing, State foresters, private landown-ers, and private organizations areworking together to improve waterquality. Through these partnerships,funds authorized in the 1987Amendments to the Clean WaterAct—the Nonpoint Source PollutionProgram (Section 319) and the CleanWater State Revolving Fund(CWSRF) (Section 601)—are beingapplied creatively to pay for a widerange of projects that either directlyor indirectly reduce nonpoint sourcepollution and improve water quality.

A VARIETY OF FOREST MANAGEMENT

PROJECTS CAN BE FUNDED THROUGH EPA

#1 Cause of Water Pollution

NPS pollution is the Nation's largest source of water quality problems—themain reason 40 percent of the surveyed water bodies in the United States arenot clean enough for basic uses such as fishing and swimming. NPS pollutioncomes from many diffuse origins. Examples include excess fertilizers, herbicides,and insecticides from agricultural lands and residential areas; oil, grease, andtoxic chemicals from urban runoff; sediment from construction runoff; and bac-teria and nutrients from livestock, pet wastes, and faulty septic systems. As rain-fall or snowmelt moves over and through the ground, it picks up and carriesaway natural and human-made pollutants, depositing them into lakes, rivers,wetlands, coastal waters, and aquifers. Today, the most common NPS pollutantscausing water quality impairments are nutrients and sediments.

2

GRANTS VS LOANS…DECIDE WHICH IS BESTFOR YOUR PROJECTDuring the early stages of projectplanning, applicants will need todecide whether to pay for the projectusing a Section 319 grant or througha CWSRF loan. Generally most Stateand local water quality officials aremore familiar with grants and may bemore comfortable with pursingSection 319 funds to pay for aproject. However, a CWSRF loan maybe a better deal. Most grants willrequire a cost share of up to 40 per-cent while a CWSRF loan can cover100 percent of project costs with noupfront money. Another importantconsideration is the total cost of proj-ect funds. CWSRF loans can providesignificant cost savings over the life ofthe loan. An interest-free CWSRFloan is equivalent to receiving a 50-percent grant (where the remaining50 percent is financed at marketrate). In addition, it may be possibleto combine a CWSRF loan with grantdollars from other sources.

SECTION 319 FUNDS FORFOREST MANAGEMENTACTIVITIESSince 1990, Congress has annuallyappropriated funds to help States,tribes, and territories implementactivities detailed in their nonpointsource pollution managementprograms. During 2004, the total

Section 319 budget was approxi-mately $238 million. Of this, $2.4million was used to supportforestry activities.

Generally, Section 319 funds aremonies distributed by EPA toState, tribal, and territory waterquality agencies, which thenaward grants to State foresters,private landowners, and privateorganizations. The grants do nothave to be repaid. However, theFederal share of a 319 grant is 60percent. The grantee must pay theremaining 40 percent. This repay-ment, which must be made fromnon-Federal sources, can come inthe form of supplies, equipment,funding, etc. Section 319 grantscan be used for an array of projectsthat reduce NPS pollution.

States Have Flexibility Using Section 319 Funds

A wide variety of projects can be funded with monies available under Section 319. Regulatory and nonregulatory programs that assess the success of specific nonpoint source projects are eligible for funding. In addition, enforcement, technical assistance, financial assistance, training, technology transfer, demonstration projects, and monitoring may be funded. To apply for 319 funds, State foresters,landowners, and private organizations should:• Consult with their State NPS coordinator (see http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/contacts.html);• Meet all deadlines;• Follow applicable guidance;• Review proposals to assure they are well written.

3

Examples of reduction of NPSpollution include:• Design and implement best

management practices;• Publish educational materials;• Conduct training courses on

forestry practices for professionals,landowners, and other interestedparties;

• Establish vegetative filter strips inriparian areas;

• Install stream crossings;• Purchase and use low-impact

logging equipment;• Plant trees;• Conduct integrated pest

management;• Produce tree seedlings; and• Carry out many other activities

aimed at improving the ability ofpublic and private forest managersto protect water resources.

Application Process forSection 319 GrantsThe best way to start the applicationprocess for Section 319 funds is to contact your State, tribal, or territori-al environmental or water qualityagency. See http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/319hfunds.html.

The Section 319 grant applicationprocess for State foresters, private landowners, and private organiza-tions varies among States, tribes, and territories. Generally, grantees mustfollow a two-step process to qualifyfor Section 319 funds. First, a workplan is needed. Second, an estimatedproject cost is needed.

Normally, States, tribes, and territo-ries will request work plans once each year from potential grantees.The work plan should:• Address an important or high-

priority watershed;• Have feasible, realistic, and meas-

urable project goals addressingwater quality;

• Contain an action plan with animplementation schedule;

• Contain on-the-ground implemen-tation components;

• Include community involvement(e.g., partnerships, stakeholderinput, public outreach); and

• Describe how the project will bemonitored and evaluated forsuccess.

4

Best Management Practices

Best Management Practices (BMPs) are used to control nonpoint sourcepollution. Since traditional end-of-pipe pollution control methods are notappropriate for nonpoint source pollution, an alternative concept of land man-agement practices as pollution control tools has emerged. This concept reliesupon the use of specific BMPs identified by the State or authorized tribe as themost effective means of preventing or reducing water pollution from nonpointsources such as agriculture or timber harvests. An example of a BMP is theinstallation of a forest buffer strip between a stream and an agricultural field tofilter out fertilizers and other pollutants before they enter surface waters. Tobe effective, BMPs must be properly installed and monitored to determine ifwater quality goals are being achieved. If not, the BMPs can be modified.

The estimated project cost documen-tation should:• Itemize a tight budget;• Fully budget administrative costs;• Present reasonable and appropriate

costs;• Assure all matching requirements

for the non-Federal share are met.

THE CLEAN WATERSTATE REVOLVING FUNDThe CWSRF, which operates like abank, is another source of fundingfor forestry projects that help mini-mize NPS and improve water quality.The EPA has been encouragingStates to open their CWSRFs to awide variety of water quality projectsand to use their CWSRFs to fundhigh-priority projects in targetedwatersheds. As a result, CWSRFs arean excellent resource for fundingforest-related NPS projects.TheCWSRF provides low or no-interestloans to State foresters, private

landowners, and private organiza-tions that have eligible projects andcan identify a dedicated loan repay-ment source. Repayment terms canbe up to 20 years. All 50 States andPuerto Rico have a CWSRF.However, each is managed individu-ally and has its own applicationprocess and project priority list.Generally, the Federal Governmentand the State provide seed moneyeach year to capitalize each respec-tive CWSRF. In addition, repaymentsfrom existing loans are added to thepool of money used to fund newprojects.

AN IMPORTANT RESOURCE FORFORESTERS, LANDOWNERS, ANDPRIVATE ORGANIZATIONSThe CWSRF can be used for virtuallyany type of nonpoint source project,including polluted run-off abate-ment, wetlands protection andenhancement, riparian buffers, and

5

estuary protection. Thus, the CWSRFis the EPA's largest water qualityfinancing source. This significantsource of financing allows Stateforesters, landowners, and privateorganizations to undertake criticalwater quality projects that otherwisemight not be addressed.

The CWSRF has more than $47 bil-lion in assets and funds over $4 billion of water quality projectseach year. The funding of NPS proj-ects, including forest conservationand restoration projects and forestrypractices initiated to control NPS pol-lution is gaining momentum. Since1989, the CWSRF has funded morethan $1.7 billion in NPS projects. Theloans can cover 100 percent of eligi-ble costs, depending upon State poli-cies. No local up-front funding matchis necessary.

States are required to match the EPAfunds received for CWSRF. However,this match requirement is not passedon to loan recipients. There is also anopportunity to leverage other fund-ing sources such as Section 319grants and USDA cost-share pro-grams. Check with your State fordetails. See http://ww.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/ andhttp://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/319hfunds.html.

Sources of Loan RepaymentMany users of the CWSRF havedemonstrated creativity in identifyingsources of loan repayment. While theultimate source of repayment forCWSRF loans may often be the loanrecipient, the repayment source can,and often is, entirely independentfrom the recipient and the waterquality project. Possible sourcesinclude: • Recreational activity fees; • Park entrance fees;• Storm water management fees;• Monies received from plant sales;• Landowner income;• Donations received by non-profit

groups;• Fees paid by developers of the land;

and• Dedicated portions of local, county,

and State fees or taxes.

Use Internet To StartApplication ProcessSince the CWSRF is managed byeach State and Puerto Rico, projectfunding priorities may vary. The EPAencourages its program administra-tors to use watershed planning anddevelop integrated priority settingsystems to choose projects thataddress the highest priority environ-mental challenges.

If you are interested in protectingforest resources or reducing pollutedrunoff using forestry practices like

6

riparian buffers, contact your StateCWSRF programs, learn how theprogram works, and participate inthe annual process that determineswhich projects are funded. The list ofCWSRF State representatives can befound at http://www.epa gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/contacts.htm

CWSRF Application ProcessEach State and Puerto Rico has asimilar process for selecting projectsto receive CWSRF financing. Ingeneral, the CWSRF loan processconsists of these steps:• Discuss the project with a CWSRF

representative and obtain anapplication if appropriate.

• Complete an application form. Thismay require applicants to:– Identify the environmental needsand cost of the project.– Describe the proposed project andcomplete project-specific docu-ments, such as design documents,engineering plans, permits, Stateagency approvals, and contractdocumentation.

– Identify a dedicated revenue source to repay the loan.– Include project financialinformation such as project capitaland operating and maintenancecosts.

7

The Section 319 and CWSRF programs have been used to support a numberof forest management efforts and could potentially support many more.

SECTION 319 CASE STUDIES

VermontThe Vermont Department of Forests,Parks and Recreation has receivedSection 319 funding for preparation ofbooklets that describe the AcceptableManagement Practices (AMPs). Theinformation provided by the AMPs book-lets is considered crucial to improvinglogging practices as they relate to waterquality protection. The booklets, distrib-uted to the logging and land-owningcommunities, serve as a benchmark forprotecting surface waters before, during,and after logging operations.

WashingtonAn innovative coalition in central Washington State has used Section319 funds to manage and protect resources on forest lands whilemaintaining a viable forest products industry. This coalition, the YakimaResource Management Cooperative, is a voluntary group of privateforest landowners, government agencies, representatives from environ-mental groups, and the Yakima Indian Nation. After identifying sedi-ment from logging roads as the single largest threat to water quality, thecooperative initiated corrective actions that included reconstructing andimproving roads, obliterating more than 50 miles of road, adopting for-est practices to reduce sediment, and using erosion control matting. Inaddition, Section 319funds have helpedprovide technicalsupport staff andongoing training forarea loggers.

EXAMPLES OF FORESTRY PRACTICES AND

PROJECTS FUNDED THROUGH SECTION

319 AND CWSRF

8

IllinoisThe Cache River Reforestation Project was implemented using Section 319funds in a cooperative effort by the Illinois EPA, the Illiniois Department ofNatural Resources and the Shawnee Resource Conservation DevelopmentArea. This project accelerated the conversion of environmentally sensitivecroplands to forest by planting native hardwoods. Fields that weredesignated “prior converted cropland” or “farmed wetland” were targeted,with an emphasis on plantings in riparian corridors that provide stream-bank stability and connect fragmented habitats. Technical assistance wasalso provided for the improvement of already existing timber stands, alongwith an information/ education program.

GuamSection 319 funds are helping to finance an interagency Water PlanningCommittee (WPC). The work group is comprised of representatives from 11agencies and interested organizations. The WPC pooled its resources andcompleted a unified watershed assessment for Guam. Once completed, theWPC then developed restoration strategies for the Northern and Ugumwatersheds. These strategies identified measurable project goals, sources ofwater pollution, planned restoration actions, monitoring and evaluationplans, funding sources, and a process for public involvement. One specificaction plan targeted soil erosion in the Ugum watershed, which is a keydrinking water resource. To minimize soil erosion the WPC encouragedactions that maximize vegetative cover, particularly forest. Goals were toconserve and protect the ravine forest, revegetate badlands with thesavanna grasslands, minimize fires, and increase public involvement andeducation. Toachieve this, 319funds were used toplant approximately50,000 trees in a 50-acre area within theUgum watershed.

9

TexasThe Texas Forest Service, working in cooperation with the Texas StateSoil and Water Conservation Board and the Texas Commission onWater Quality, has used Section 319 funding together with State match-ing funds to implement a successful voluntary Best ManagementPractices program involving local foresters, landowners, and silviculturalcontractors. The success of this voluntary program is based on educa-tion. The Texas Forest Service and these cooperators have implementedthis education program through television and radio appearances, news-paper articles, brochures, newsletters, meetings, workshops, and specialevents to promote the importance of using forestry Best ManagementPractices to control NPS pollution. The Texas educational program has alreadyreached over 20,000 foresters, landowners, loggers, silverculturecontractors, and citizens. Program efforts are continuing with sixprimary objectives:

1. Educate the forestry community.2. Integrate Best Management Practices into all relevant Texas forestry

management programs.3. Demonstrate various Best Management

Practices using two demonstration areas devel-oped as educational tools.

4. Foster cooperation between agencies and theforestry community for a coordinated, effectiveprogram.

5. Evaluate the program and revise as needed.6. Monitor Best Management Practice implemen-

tation and effectiveness through on-site inspec-tions of silvicultural activities.

10

CWSRF CASE STUDIES

OhioThe Ohio EPA and Ohio Department of NaturalResources-Division of Forestry are using Ohio'sCWSRF to finance low-interest loans to qualifyingMaster Loggers and Certified Foresters for thepurchase of logging and tree planting equipment. The intent of this program is to create a voluntary,financial incentive for the use of Best ManagementPractices (BMPs) on logging operations, and to supportsuccessful, ongoing silvicultural NPS strategies—alldirected toward preventing nonpoint source pollutionfrom logging operations. The type of equipmentfinanced can include equipment used in the implementation of BMPssuch as bulldozers or tractors; new technology, such as tracked forwarders and hydro-bunchers that will lead to lesssedimentation; and specialized equipment designed particularly for BMPconstruction or use, such as timber bridges and mulching machines.

CaliforniaCalifornia CWSRF provided funds to implement the Tahoe Re-GreenProject. This project was part of the Tahoe Basin-wide effort to reducethe risk of catastrophic fire. Huge numbers of dead and dying treeswere located on public and private land throughout the Tahoe Basin.While public managers hadaccelerated efforts to address fuelloads on public lands, Tahoe Re-Green addressed private lands.CWSRF funds provided financialassistance to private landownersin the Tahoe Basin to facilitatethe removal of dead and dyingfuels in a manner thatminimized erosion and fullyprotected water quality.

11

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimina-tion in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, National ori-gin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, andmarital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.)Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communicationof program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contactUSDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a compliant of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office ofCivil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and IndependenceAvenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (202) 720-5964(voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

United States Department ofAgriculture

United StatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency

Forest Service

FS-765 July 2004

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:Susan Stein, Private Forest Study Coordinator of theForest Service Cooperative Forestry Staff in Washington,DC, coordinated the development of this brochure. Chris Solloway and Stephanie Vonfeck, EPA, and KarenSolari, Forest Service, provided detailed technical reviewof material.

Except for those listed below, the USDA Forest Serviceand USDA Natural Resources Conservation Serviceprovided all photos.

American Toad on page 6—Jason OsenkowskiMallards on page 7—Gary ArmstrongLogging road on page 8—Bill Baron, VermontDepartment of Forests, Parks and RecreationGuam reforestation on page 9—Michael LeeBeavers on page 9—Margaret St. ClairePhotos for case study on page 10—Ronald F. Billings,Texas Forest ServiceHarvesting photo on page 5 and case study photo onpage 11—Mark Ervin, Ohio Department of NaturalResources