Section 319(h) – NPS Pollution Control Financial Assistance Program (FY 2026)

All Section 319(h) applications shall be reviewed for completeness, technical merit, cost effectiveness, and adherence to the Clean Water Act, U.S. EPA Section 319(h) program guidance, and the competitive grant evaluation criteria described in this NOFO. Applications found to be complete shall undergo a comprehensive, merit-based review performed in compliance with GATA Legislation, 30 ILCS 708 and Uniform Administrative Requirements, 2 C.F.R. § 200. The merit-based review is designed to evaluate the applications against the following criteria:

For BMP implementation applications, the following criteria will be used

 

Project Need (0 – 30 points)

The BMPs in the specified location(s) will result in reducing or preventing pollutant loads and/or problems resulting from nonpoint source pollution. 

• 100% of the BMP(s) in their locations will reduce or prevent pollutant loads and/or problems resulting from nonpoint source pollution (5 points).
• The BMP type(s) proposed does not have a specific location(s) but will reduce or prevent pollutant loads and/or problems resulting from nonpoint source pollution in the identified watershed (3 points).
• The BMP(s) in the specified locations will not reduce or prevent pollutant loads and/or problems resulting from nonpoint source pollution (0 points).

The pollutant load reduction model results have been included in the application.

• The application includes full pollutant load reduction model input and model results in a pdf or spreadsheet format from an approved pollutant load reduction model (Pollutant Load Estimation Tool (PLET), STEP-L, or Region 5 model) (5 points).
• The application includes pollutant load reduction model results from PLET, STEP-L, or Region 5 models in the Additional Details spreadsheet. (3 points)
• The application does not include information on pollutant load reductions (0 points).

The proposed project(s) are recommended in an approved watershed-based plan.

• The specific project or BMP type is recommended in an Illinois EPA approved watershed-based plan that is 10 years old or less (including in plans submitted and currently under Illinois EPA review) (5 points)
• The specific project or BMP type is recommended in an Illinois EPA approved watershed-based plan that is Illinois EPA approved watershed plan or watershed-based plan that is 11 years or older (3 points).
• The specific project or BMP type is not recommended in an Illinois EPA approved watershed-based plan (0 points).

Pounds of phosphorus BMPs will reduce or prevent per year on average.

• Reductions over 249 pounds of phosphorus (5 points)
• Reductions from 150 to 249 pounds of phosphorus (4 points)
• Reductions from 75 to 149 pounds of phosphorus (3 points)
• Reductions from 25 to 74 pounds of phosphorus (2 points)
• Reductions from 1 to 24 pounds of phosphorus (1 Point)
• No reduction (0 points)

Pounds of nitrogen BMPs will reduce or prevent per year on average.

• Reductions over 750 pounds of nitrogen (5 points)
• Reductions from 400 to 749 pounds of nitrogen (4 points)
• Reductions from 200 to 399 pounds of nitrogen (3 points)
• Reductions from 100 to 199 pounds of nitrogen (2 points)
• Reductions from 1 to 99 pounds of nitrogen (1 point)
• No reduction (0 points)

 Tons of sediment BMPs will reduce or prevent per year on average.

• Reductions over 300 tons of sediment (5 points)
• Reductions from 150 to 299 tons of sediment (4 points)
• Reductions from 75 to 149 tons of sediment (3 points)
• Reductions from 25 to 74 tons of sediment (2 points)
• Reductions from 1 to 24 tons of sediment (1 point)
• No reduction (0 points)

Project Readiness (0 – 20 points)

BMP(s) types and location identification

• All sites and BMP(s) identified (5 points).
• BMP types are identified, and specific locations have not been identified yet, but the applicant has a strategy for identifying their locations (3 points)
• BMP types are identified, but specific locations have not been identified (1 point)
• No sites or BMP types have been identified (0 points).

Site landowners have confirmed permission to implement the project

• BMP(s) owned 100% by applicant or legally binding agreements with landowners already in place (5 points).
• BMP(s) with multiple landowners that submitted written confirmation from ALL landowners that they plan to participate (3 points).
• BMP(s) that have some but not all landowner confirmation (2 points).
• BMP(s) without documentation of landowner participation (0 points).

 BMP(s) design(s) readiness

• BMP(s) design with PE stamped designs 100% complete (5 points).
• BMP(s) with 60 – 90% designs complete (3 points).
• BMP(s) with only a conceptual design(s) (2 points).
• BMP(s) with only narrative of the proposed project(s) (1 point).

Local, State, and Federal permits 

• All required permits secured or no permits required (5 points).
• Some, but not all required permits secured (4 points).
• Permits applied for or all permits that will be needed are described (3 points).
• No discussion of permits (0 points).

Cost-effectiveness (0 – 20 points)

Average BMP cost/unit for the proposed project (If a project includes multiple BMPs that use different units of measurement, the BMP representing the predominant portion of the project will be used to determine the score. For example, if a project includes a major streambank stabilization component and a minor filter strip component, the streambank stabilization cost will be used for scoring. If the BMP types are equally integral, an average of the two BMP scores will be used. When the averaged score falls between two whole numbers, the higher whole-number score will be selected.)

• Cost from $0 - $75 per linear foot or $0 - $20,000 per acre (5 points)
• Cost from $76 - $150 per linear foot or $20,001 - $70,000 per acre (4 points)
• Cost from $151 - $250 per linear foot or $70,001 - $100,000 per acre (3 points)
• Cost from $251 - $600 per linear foot or $100,001 - 150,000 per acre (2 points)
• Cost over $600 per linear foot or over $150,000 per acre (1 point)

Project’s cost per pound of Phosphorus reduced per year on average.

• Cost of $0-1,000 per pound of phosphorus reduced (5 points)
• Cost of $1,001-3,000 per pound of phosphorus reduced (4 points)
• Cost of $3,001-6,000 per pound of phosphorus reduced (3 points)
• Cost of $6,001-10,000 per pound of phosphorus reduced (2 points)
• Cost over $10,000 per pound of phosphorus reduced (1 point)

Project’s cost per pound of Nitrogen reduced per year on average.

• Cost of $0-500 per pound of nitrogen reduced (5 points)
• Cost of $501-1,500 per pound of nitrogen reduced (4 points)
• Cost of $1,501-3,000 per pound of nitrogen reduced (3 points)
• Cost of $3,001-5,000 per pound of nitrogen reduced (2 points)
• Cost over $5,000 per pound of nitrogen reduced (1 point)

Project’s cost per ton of Sediment reduced per year on average.

• Cost of $0-1,000 per ton of sediment reduced (5 points)
• Cost of $1,001-3,000 per ton of sediment reduced (4 points)
• Cost of $3,001-6,000 per ton of sediment reduced (3 points)
• Cost of $6,000-10,000 per ton of sediment reduced (2 points)
• Cost over $10,000 per ton of sediment reduced (1 point)

Sustainability (0 – 10 points)

BMPs designed lifespan(s)

• Projects that include 100% of BMPs with lifespan greater than 25 years (5 points).
• Projects that include BMPs with lifespan between 10 and 25 years (4 points).
• Projects that do not exceed the required 10-years of O&M (0 points)

Description of relevant and robust operation and maintenance (O&M) plan, including funds to implement said plan and identification of the entity responsible to implement the O&M plan

• Application specifically outlines the O&M activities necessary for the proposed BMP, source of funding, and responsible entity that has a secure capacity to conduct the required work (5 points).
• Applications provide brief descriptions of required O&M activities, sources of funds, and responsible entity (3 points).
• Applications provide brief descriptions of one or two of the following: required O&M activities, sources of funds, or the responsible entity. (2 points).
• Applications provide no information on O&M activities (0 points).

Nonpoint Source Pollution Activity Coordination (0 – 10 points)

Application continues implementation of other nonpoint source pollution control activities such as BMP construction and/or watershed-based plan implementation

• Applications that document that the project is part of a larger layered effort (ordinances, planning, BMP implementation) to reduce pollutant loads (5 points).
• Applications that link the project only to other individual BMP implementation (3 points).
• Applications that document the project as the only work happening within their jurisdiction (2 points).

Relationship to Illinois EPA Priority Watersheds for Fiscal Year 25

• Applications in or directly impacting a Priority Watershed area (5 points).
• Applications that have no relationship to and are not located within a Priority Watershed (0 points).

Watershed Based Planning

All Section 319 Grant Program applications shall be reviewed for completeness, technical merit, cost effectiveness, and adherence to the Clean Water Act, U.S. EPA Section 319 program guidance, and the competitive grant evaluation criteria described in this NOFO. Applications found to be complete shall undergo a comprehensive, merit-based review performed in compliance with GATA Legislation 30 ILCS 708 and Uniform Administrative Requirements; 2 CFR § 200. The merit-based review is designed to evaluate applications against the following criteria:

Project Need (0 – 25 points):

The project is for a new watershed-based plan, an update of a watershed-based plan, or a significant component of the watershed-based planning process.

• The project is developing a new watershed-based plan (5 points).
• The project is updating an existing watershed plan or watershed-based plan that is more than 8 years old (4 points).
• The project is doing a preliminary study at the HUC8 level to identify high priority HUC12s for a watershed-based plan (3 points).
• The project is developing a watershed-based plan that is incomplete, does not address NPS pollution, or for an area that already has an existing watershed-based plan that is less than 8 years old (0 points).

The watershed-based planning area has waterbodies impaired for nonpoint source pollution listed on the Illinois Clean Waters Act section 303(d) list of impaired waters.

• The planning area averages more than two impaired waterbodies per HUC12 watershed (5 points).
• The planning area averages two impaired waterbodies per HUC12 watershed (4 points).
• The planning area averages one impaired waterbody per HUC12 watershed (3 points).
• The planning area contains one impaired waterbody (2 points).
• The planning area does not contain any impaired waterbodies (1 point).

The application has provided an estimated nitrogen load and acreage for each HUC12 watershed from U.S EPA Pollutant Load Estimation Tool (PLET), or another model that can provide equivalent values, from which load per acre can be evaluated.

• The estimated nitrogen load per acre is five or more pounds (5 points).
• The estimated nitrogen load per acre is at least four pounds (4 points).
• The estimated nitrogen load per acre is at least three pounds (3 points).
• The estimated nitrogen load per acre is at least two pounds (2 points).
• The estimated nitrogen load per acre is at least one pound (1 point).
• The estimated nitrogen load per acre is less than one pound (0 points).

The application has provided an estimated phosphorus load and acreage for each HUC12 watershed from U.S EPA Pollutant Load Estimation Tool (PLET), or another model that can provide equivalent values, from which load per acre can be evaluated.

• The estimated phosphorus load per acre is one or more pounds (5 points).
• The estimated phosphorus load per acre is at least 0.8 pounds (4 points).
• The estimated phosphorus load per acre is at least 0.6 pounds (3 points).
• The estimated phosphorus load per acre is at least 0.4 pounds (2 points).
• The estimated phosphorus load per acre is at least 0.2 pounds (1 point).
• The estimated phosphorus load per acre is less than 0.2 pounds (0 points).

The application has provided an estimated sediment load and acreage for each HUC12 watershed from U.S EPA Pollutant Load Estimation Tool (PLET), or another model that can provide equivalent values, from which load per acre can be evaluated.

• The estimated sediment load per acre is at least 0.4 tons (400+ pounds) (5 points).
• The estimated sediment load per acre is at least 0.3 tons (300-399 pounds) (4 points).
• The estimated sediment load per acre is at least 0.2 tons (200-299 pounds) (3 points).
• The estimated sediment load per acre is at least 0.1 tons (100-199 pounds) (2 points).
• The estimate sediment load per acre is less than 0.1 tons (1-99 pounds) (1 point).
• There is no estimated sediment load provided (0 points).

Project Readiness (0 – 35 points)

The application identifies a clear strategy to inventory watershed resources according to U.S. EPA and Illinois EPA guidelines for the watershed-based planning process in sources such as the Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories dated May 4, 2024, and Grantor documents such as the TMDL/WBP Joint Evaluation Form.

• The application outlines specific strategies to inventory watershed resources (5 points).
• The application outlines a general strategy to inventory watershed resources (3 points).
• The application does not describe a process to inventory watershed resources (0 points).

The application identifies a clear strategy for estimating the watershed pollutant loads and expected load reductions from plan recommendations that identifies a model or other appropriate method to evaluate the planning area. Models that have not been approved or issued by the Illinois EPA or U.S. EPA require justification through sufficient description of the model operation and functionality for NPS pollution modeling.

• An accepted model(s) or methodology has been provided with description of how it/they will be used to estimate NPS pollutant loading and reduction (5 points).
• A general strategy has been provided for estimating NPS loading and reduction that shows the processes behind NPS pollution are understood, though a model or methodology has not been chosen at the time of application (3 points).
• A strategy has not been provided or is not sufficient to explain how the planning process will utilize a model or methodology, even if an acceptable model or method to estimate pollutant loading and reduction has been provided (1 Point).

The application identifies an appropriate strategy for determining Best Management Practice (BMP) recommendations to be included within the plan that considers, at a minimum, the general characteristics of the watershed such as land use, soil types, topography and other features included in the resource inventory that are relevant to BMP design.

• A strategy has been provided that at a minimum discusses the primary BMPs that may be considered for the watershed based and how they would be applied based on initial considerations of planning area conditions (5 points).
• A strategy has been provided that discusses BMPs that will be considered but does not connect them to the conditions of the planning area (3 points).
• Potential BMPs are listed without a strategy but are appropriate to the watershed-planning process (2 points).
• Strategy or BMPs are not provided or are not connected to the watershed-based planning process (1 point).

The application identifies a strategy for estimating the technical and financial assistance that will be necessary to complete plan recommendations that identifies how requirements from U.S. EPA’s May 4, 2024, guidance will be determined and validated.

• The application outlines how the cost of planning recommendation will be estimated and how sources of assistance will be assessed regarding the planning effort (5 Points).
• The provided outline does not fully outline cost estimation methodologies or does not include what sources of assistance will be assessed for (3 Point).
• A strategy is not provided or does not address watershed planning requirements (1 Point).

The application identifies a strategy that identifies the general components that will be pursued to develop outreach in support of public awareness and adherence to plan recommendations.

• The strategy addresses all components of an information and education strategy as identified in the Illinois EPA Joint Evaluation Form (5 points)
• The strategy does not address all components of an information and education strategy as identified in the Illinois EPA Joint Evaluation Form. (3 points)
• A strategy is not provided or does not address the requirements (1 point)

The application identifies a general strategy detailing how monitoring will be conducted to evaluate whether plan recommendations and pollutant load reductions are being met.

• The strategy details the type of methods, tools, or resources that will be used or created to track progress of the plan. (5 points)
• The included strategy does not fully address how plan recommendations will be evaluated to determine the success of the planning effort. (3 points)
• The application does not address monitoring in terms appropriate to tracking the success of the watershed-based plan (1 point)

The application includes an inclusive plan for the incorporation of public participation into the planning process.

• The application outlines a public participation process that identifies specific partners including local stakeholders and local experts and their roles in the planning process (5 points).
• The application identifies the types of local groups, stakeholders, and experts who would be involved and their roles in the planning process (3 points).
• The application does not identify the types of local groups, stakeholders, and experts who would be involved and their roles in the planning process (1 points).

Sustainability (0 – 10 points)

The application discusses the support for future implementation of the watershed-based plan and who the responsible entities will be.

• The project, when completed, includes a plan for implementation led by a specific organization or committee of stakeholders after the grant ends (10 points).
• The project, when completed, includes a plan for implementation by individual stakeholders without a coordinating organization or committee (5 points).
• The project, when completed, will no longer have additional activities (0 points).

Cost Effectiveness (0 – 10 points)

Cost of plan development as compared to the planning area acreage.

• $0.00 to $3.50 per acre (10 Points).
• $3.51 to $5.00 per acre (8 Points).
• $5.01 to $7.00 per acre (6 points).
• $7.01 to $8.50 per acre (4 points).
• $8.51 to $10.00 per acre (2 points).
• Over $10.01 per acre (1 point).

Nonpoint Source Pollution Activity Coordination (0 – 10 points)

The project documents implementation of other nonpoint source pollution control activities such as BMP construction and/or watershed-based plan implementation.

• Applications that document that the project is part of a larger layered effort (ordinances, planning, BMP implementation) to reduce pollutant loads (5 points).
• Applications that link the project only to other project implementation (3 points).
• Applications that document the project as the only work happening within their jurisdiction (2 points).

Relationship to 2026 Fiscal Year Illinois EPA Priority Watersheds.

• Applications in or directly impacting a Priority Watershed area (5 points).
• Applications that have no relationship to and are not located within a Priority Watershed (0 points).

For Education and Outreach projects and technical assistance projects, the following criteria will be used:

Project Need (0 – 30 points)

The Outreach and Information or technical assistance project is for a documented issue in the project area.

• The project directly addresses documented nonpoint source pollution issue(s) in the project area (5 points).
• The project is a preventative effort for an issue that is appropriate for the project area (4 points).
• The project does not address documented nonpoint source pollution issue(s) for the project area (0 points).

The Outreach and Information or technical assistance project is a component of an existing Illinois EPA Watershed-Based Plan or Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Implementation Plan.

• The project directly addresses a critical area(s) identified in an Illinois EPA Watershed-Based Plan or Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Implementation Plan (5 points).
• The project directly addresses a non-critical area(s) identified in an Illinois EPA Watershed-Based Plan or Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Implementation Plan (3 points).
• The project is not based on an Illinois EPA Watershed-Based Plan or Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Implementation Plan (1 point).

Magnitude or Severity of the NPS Pollution Problem

• The project addresses a NPS pollutant issue of high importance (major impairments, sensitive waterbody, multiple pollutants) (5 points).
• The project addresses a NPS pollutant issue of moderate importance (some impairments or risks) (3 points).
• The NPS pollutant issue is of minimal or low severity (1 point).

Importance of Target Audience(s) to Solving the Problem

• Target audience plays a high-impact role in NPS pollutant reduction (5 points).
• Target audience plays a moderate role in NPS pollutant reduction (3 points).
• Audience has minimal influence on in NPS pollutant reduction (1 point).

The applicant documented that they have engaged key stakeholders in participating in the project.

• Key stakeholders have documented a willingness to participate in the project (5 points)
• Key stakeholders have been identified, but have not documented their participation in the project (3 points)
• No stakeholders have been identified as participating in the project (0 points).

The application adequately defines the project’s Goals and Objectives - what the applicant is looking to achieve by engaging the community.

• The project clearly defines goals and objectives (5 points).
• The project defines goals and objectives but is not clear (2 points).
• The project does not define goals and objectives (0 points).

Project Readiness (0 – 30 points)

The application promotes point and/or nonpoint source pollution control to watershed stakeholders. 

• The application promotes documented nonpoint source pollution control that is relevant to the project watershed (5 points).
• The application does not promote documented point and/or nonpoint source pollution control (0 point).

The status of the applicant’s education and outreach workplan.

• The applicant has a workplan that includes a detailed timeline with projected outputs and outcomes, methods (5 points).
• The applicant has not developed a workplan but developed an outline of a workplan that includes an overview of timeline, projected outputs and outcomes, and methods (3 points).
• The applicant does not have a workplan or an outline of a workplan (0 points)

The project message or technical assistance is applicable to the NOFO.

• The application has a clear message or technical assistance applicable to the NOFO (5 points).
• The application has a message or technical assistance that is partially applicable to the NOFO (3 points).
• The application has no project message or technical assistance, or the message or technical assistance is not applicable (0 point)

The application identifies qualified and appropriate organization(s) to perform outreach and information and/or technical assistance activities.

• The project has qualified and appropriate organization(s) and staff (5 points).
• The project has organization(s) that are qualified and appropriate but does not have specific staff identified (3 points).
• The project does not have qualified and appropriate organization(s) and staff (0 point).

The application identifies target audience(s)

• The project identifies specific target audience(s) (5 points).
• The project identifies the types of local groups, stakeholders, and experts who are the target audience(s) (3 points).
• The project does not identify the types of local groups, stakeholders, and experts who would be involved and their roles in the process (0 point).

The application identifies delivery mechanisms - the actions that will be taken to engage the target audiences, i.e., meetings, brochures, website, signs, programmatic experiences, educational outreach or technical assistance with partner organizations, tours and/or planting days, displays, newspaper and newsletter articles, etc.

• The application identifies specific delivery mechanisms (5 points)
• The application identifies partial or generic delivery mechanisms (3 points).
• The application does not identify delivery mechanisms (0 points).

Cost-Effectiveness (0 – 10 points)

The project will have outputs that will continue to retain value for NPS reduction after the project period ends.

• The application identifies multiple outputs that will have use after project completion, such as lesson plans, presentation materials, or demonstration tools for outreach projects, or completed BMP designs for technical assistance projects (5 points). 
• The application identifies one output that will have use after project completion (3 points).
• All outputs identified by in the application are single use or specific to a single use that will not extend beyond the project term (1 point).

The project has a significant number of diverse outputs for the cost of the project

• Project outputs are diverse and numerous with five (5) or more outputs (5 points)
• Project has four (4) diverse outputs (4 points)
• Project has three (3) diverse outputs (3 points)
• Project has two (2) outputs (2 points)
• Project has one (1) output (1 point)

Sustainability (0 – 10 points)

If the goals of the project cannot be completed in the project term, the project identifies how the project intends to continue progress towards those goals after project funding ends.

• Application provides a clear strategy for the continuation of the project after the 2-year grant term, if necessary to accomplish project goals. (5 points)
• Application does not provide a strategy for the continuation of the project. (0 points)

The project can serve as a template or another example of a successful project type that future applicants can reference to solve similar issues in other planning areas across the state.

• The project draws from several past projects, though some aspect of the project is unique and can serve as an example to guide future projects (5 points)
• The project draws from several past projects that are examples of successful outreach or technical assistance projects (3 points)
• The project shows association with at least one other project, but the success of the support projects cannot be evaluated (2 points)
• The project is completely novel or otherwise cannot be properly evaluated for appropriateness to NPS reduction (1 point)

Nonpoint Source Pollution Activity Coordination (0 – 10 points)

The project documents implementation of other nonpoint source pollution control activities such as BMP construction and/or watershed-based plan implementation.

• Applications that document that the project is part of a larger layered effort (ordinances, planning, BMP implementation) to reduce pollutant loads (5 points).
• Applications that link the project only to other project implementation (3 points).
• Applications that document the project as the only work happening within their jurisdiction (2 points).

Relationship to Illinois EPA Priority Watersheds for Fiscal Year 26

• Applications in or directly impacting a Priority Watershed area (5 points).
• Applications that have no relationship to and are not located within a Priority Watershed (0 points).

For monitoring projects, the following criteria will be used:

Project Need (0 – 30 points)

The monitoring project is for a documented nonpoint source pollution issue in the project area related to a prospective Section 319 project or projects, the project proposed in this application, or a project previously funded by a Section 319 grant..

• The project directly addresses a documented issue in an area related to a prospective Section 319 project or projects, the project proposed in this application, or a project previously funded by a Section 319 grant. (10 points).
• The project does not address a relevant nonpoint source pollution for the project area or is not related to a project proposed or previously funded by a Section 319 grant (0 points and not eligible for funding).

The monitoring project is a component of an existing Illinois EPA Watershed-Based Plan or Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Implementation Plan.

• The project directly addresses a critical area(s) identified in an Illinois EPA Watershed-Based Plan or Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Implementation Plan (10 points).
• The project directly addresses a non-critical area(s) identified in an Illinois EPA Watershed-Based Plan or Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Implementation Plan (5 points).
• The project is not based on an Illinois EPA Watershed-Based Plan or Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Implementation Plan (2 points)

The monitoring activity is not being done by other entities

• The monitoring is not being performed by other entities and is documented as a need in the identified waterbodies (10 points)
• The monitoring is being done by other entities, but not at a needed frequency documented in a watershed plan. (5 points)
• The monitoring is being performed regularly by other entities (0 points)

Project Readiness (0 – 30 points)

The application includes monitoring for point and/or nonpoint source pollution. 

• The application includes monitoring for point and/or nonpoint source pollution that is relevant to the project watershed (6 points).
• The application does not include sufficient monitoring for point and/or nonpoint source pollution (0 points).

The status of the applicant’s monitoring workplan.

• The applicant has a workplan that includes a detailed timeline with projected outputs and outcomes, methods and has an Illinois-EPA approved QAPP (6 points).
• The applicant has not developed a workplan but developed an outline of a workplan that includes an overview of timeline, projected outputs and outcomes, and methods (3 points).
• The applicant does not have a workplan or an outline of a workplan (0 points).

The application identifies qualified and appropriate organization(s) to lead and/or conduct monitoring activities.

• The application has qualified and appropriate organization(s) and staff to conduct the monitoring activities (6 points).
• The application has organization(s) that are qualified and appropriate to conduct the monitoring activities, but do not have specific staff identified (3 points).
• The application does not have qualified and appropriate organization(s) and staff (0 points).

The application identifies a specific delivery mechanism for quality data based on lab accreditation.

• The application identifies specific delivery mechanisms (6 points).
• The application identifies partial or generic delivery mechanisms (3 points).
• The application does not identify delivery mechanisms (0 points).

The applicant organization oversees environmental monitoring as part of its responsibilities.

• The applicant has specific monitoring activities as part of its responsibilities (6 points).
• The applicant organization has overseen monitoring projects in the past, but it is not part of its ongoing responsibilities. (3 points).
• The applicant organization has never overseen environmental monitoring projects (0 points).

Cost-Effectiveness (0 – 10 points)

Project has components that will continue to provide data after the end of the project term or can be used as a component of a future monitoring project.

• The majority of project activities will have the potential to create a continuous source of monitoring data or will have the potential to be reused for a new project or new location (5 points).
• Some project activities have the potential to extend beyond the project term, but most activities are specific to the project and cannot be reused or repurposed (3 points).
• All project components will only be used for water quality monitoring activities within the project term (1 point).

The project will expand the capacity of the Illinois EPA to engage in assess or otherwise enhance the ability of the Illinois EPA to assess the water quality for waterbodies of the state for purposes defined in the Clean Water Act.

• The project expands Illinois EPA capacity to monitor water quality of waterbodies in the state by generating data for a waterbody that is not currently monitored by the Illinois EPA or its partners (5 points).
• The project enhances data collected for a waterbody, by methods such as increased collection frequency or additional parameters, that is already monitored by the Illinois EPA or its partners (3 points).
• The project is monitoring a waterbody that is already monitored by the Illinois EPA or its partners and the application is not clear about how this additional monitoring will enhance the existing data (1 points).

Sustainability (0 – 10 points)

Monitoring continuity after completion of the project agreement term.

• The project, when completed, will become part of a continuing monitoring effort after the grant ends (5 points).
• The project, when completed, will no longer have additional activities (3 points).

The application details plans or methodologies to retain and protect the data collected and provide it for public use, either through another agency or resources possessed by the applicant.

• The project has described methodology to retain the data and provide it for public use, unless data is under some form of legal protection that prevents public access (5 points).
• The project has appropriate methodology for data retention but does not have a way to provide it to the public for access (3 points)
• The project does not provide evidence that the data will be adequately protected from errors such as data corruption or hardware malfunction (1 point).

Nonpoint Source Pollution Activity Coordination (0 – 10 points)

The project documents implementation of other nonpoint source pollution control activities such as BMP construction and/or watershed-based plan implementation.

• Applications that document that the project is part of a larger layered effort (ordinances, planning, BMP implementation) to reduce pollutant loads (5 points).
• Applications that link the project only to other project implementation (3 points).
• Applications that document the project as the only work happening within their jurisdiction (2 points).

Relationship to Illinois EPA Priority Watersheds for Fiscal Year 26

• Applications in or directly impacting a Priority Watershed area (5 points).
• Applications that have no relationship to and are not located within a Priority Watershed (0 points).

Illinois EPA staff will be responsible for evaluating and scoring applications. 

The complete applications shall be reviewed by an Evaluation Panel that is composed of Illinois EPA staff.

Application scores shall be calculated as follows:

1. Applications will be ranked based on the sum of the scoring criteria.
2. Applications will be ranked highest to lowest based on total project score.
3. Applications with the highest scores will be considered for an award.

Additional review and selection processes are provided below.

• If the amount of available grant funding is not sufficient to fund a higher-ranked application in its entirety, the Illinois EPA shall review the application to determine if a discrete portion or phase of the project meeting the mission of this NOFO can be funded.
• If the Evaluation Panel determines that an application cannot be funded in whole or in part, the next highest-ranked application will be reviewed to determine whether a specific portion or phase of the project can be funded in support of the NOFO mission. If no portion can be funded, the remaining funds may remain unawarded or may be reallocated through a subsequent funding opportunity under this program.
• If the Illinois EPA determines that an applicant incorrectly calculated or indicated the project cost, match, and/or total funding request based on the applicable cost estimate, required match, or eligible costs, the application shall still be accepted and reviewed. If the applicant is awarded a grant, the Illinois EPA shall contact the applicant and request a decision from the applicant as to whether it will accept the award based on the Illinois EPA’s determination of the project cost, applicant match, and/or total funding requested. If the applicant does not accept the Illinois EPA’s determination, the application shall not be funded.

Based on eligibility and merit criteria, and the Evaluation Panel scoring, the Illinois’ Section 319(h) Nonpoint Source Work Plan (Work Plan Project list) will be prepared and submitted to U.S. EPA for approval. The Project list identifies the selected applications (Projects) proposed for funding by Illinois EPA. with a budget spreadsheet, a short narrative summary of each Project, and a copy of the selected Project applications.

Following a decision of intent to award, the Illinois EPA is required by GATA to conduct a programmatic risk assessment of the applicant. Additional information may be required at that time from the successful applicant. To remain eligible for the award, the applicant must provide the requested information within the time specified by the Illinois EPA. The Programmatic Risk Assessment evaluates the applicant’s ability to successfully carry out the terms of the Section 319(h) Grant Program and assesses four risk categories: 1) quality of management systems and ability to meet the management standards; 2) history of performance; 3) reports and findings from audits performed on prior awards; and 4) the applicant’s ability to effectively implement statutory, regulatory, or other requirements imposed on a Grantee.

Appeal Process

An appeal process is available to applicants and other interested parties; however, appeals are limited to the Illinois EPA evaluation process. Evaluation scores may not be protested. An appeal must be submitted in writing to the following address: Illinois EPA, Attn: Section 319(h) Grant Program, Bureau of Water, Mail Code #15, P.O. Box 19276, Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 and must be received within 14 calendar days after the date that the grant award notice has been published by the Illinois EPA on Grants.Illinois.gov. The written appeal shall include at a minimum the following: the name and address of the appealing party, identification of the grant, and a statement of reasons for the appeal. Illinois EPA shall acknowledge receipt of an appeal within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date the appeal was received.

When an appeal is received, the execution of the grant in contention that Illinois EPA intends to make under this NOFO shall be stayed until the appeal is resolved, unless the agency head or designee determines that the needs of the State require that the grant program move forward despite the appeal. This determination, and its rationale, must be documented in writing.

Illinois EPA shall respond to the appeal within 60 days or supply a written explanation to the appealing party as to why additional time is required. The appealing party must supply any additional information requested by Illinois EPA within the time period set in the request. The Director of the Illinois EPA may appoint one or more Appeal Review Officers (ARO) to consider the grant-related appeal and make a recommendation to the Director of the Illinois EPA or designee for resolution. The ARO shall make a recommendation to the Director of the Illinois EPA or designee as expeditiously as possible after receiving all relevant, requested information. In determining the appropriate recommendation, the ARO shall consider the integrity of the competitive grant process and the impact of the recommendation on the Illinois EPA. The Illinois EPA shall resolve the appeal by means of written determination, which shall include, but not be limited to: review of the appeal, appeal determination, and rationale for the determination.

The anticipated start date for approved projects is April 15, 2026 or the date of the execution of the contract, whichever comes first.