[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 214 (Thursday, November 5, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59870-59874]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-29664]
[[Page 59869]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
Revised Allotment Formulas for State and Interstate Monies Appropriated
Under Section 106 of the Clean Water Act; Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1998 /
Notices
[[Page 59870]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-6184-9]
Revised Allotment Formulas for State and Interstate Monies
Appropriated Under Section 106 of the Clean Water Act
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of revised allotment to formulas and request for
comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces revised allotment formulas for allotting
funds appropriated under section 106 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) to
States and to interstate agencies for use in administering specific
elements of Clean Water Act programs. The notice includes FY 1999
allotments for States and interstate agencies and requests comments on
the revised formulas for use in FY 2000 and beyond.
Section 106 of the CWA authorizes the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to provide grants to States, interstate agencies, and
Indian Tribes to administer programs for the prevention, reduction, and
elimination of water pollution, including the development and
implementation of ground-water protection strategies. EPA has revised
the CWA section 106 allotment formulas, which are based on ``the extent
of the pollution problem,'' to better reflect its current understanding
of the significant sources of pollution nationwide.
The revised formula will be phased in FY 1999, with no State or
interstate agency receiving less than its FY 1998 allotment. EPA is
seeking comment on the revised formula for use in FY 2000 and beyond.
DATES: The revised formula for FY 1999 is effective November 5, 1998.
Comments on the revised formula for the full implementation for FY
2000 should be in writing and must be postmarked by January 4, 1999.
Electronic comments should be posted by January 4, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Public Comments. All public comments regarding the revised
formula shall be submitted no later than January 4, 1999, to: Water
Docket, W-98-28, EB 57, USEPA Headquarters, 401 M. St., S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Crow, Office of Wastewater
Management (4201), 401 M Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20460, (202) 260-
6742, Facsimile: (202) 260-1156, e-mail: crow.carol@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: CWA section 106 provides general authority
for grants to States, Tribes, and interstate agencies to support key
elements of clean water programs. Grants provide States, Tribes, and
interstate agencies with critical resources for the effective
management of water pollution control programs including water quality
monitoring, standards development, and permit issuance. The
Administration proposed and Congress appropriated a significant
increase in grant funds to support these activities in FY 1999.
The CWA directs the EPA Administrator to allocate section 106
grants funds ``on the basis of the extent of the pollution problem.''
The existing section 106 formula is derived from data more than 25
years old and is based on population data from the 1960s and an
estimate from the early 1970s of the number of large cattle feedlots,
industrial and municipal point sources and power plants.
Reports of water quality conditions around the country provided by
States under section 305(b) of the CWA indicate that the location and
nature of the sources of water pollution has changed significantly
since the early 1970s. In evaluating this data, EPA decided to consider
whether an alternate formula would better comply with the statutory
directive to allocate funds among States and interstate agencies based
on the ``extent of the pollution problem.'' (The allotment formula for
the Tribal Section was revised in 1998 and it is not affected by this
action.)
EPA organized a work group consisting of geographically-balanced
representation from the Agency, seven States, and an interstate agency
to review the existing formula and consider other approaches. The State
representatives were recommended by the Environmental Council of States
(ECOS), the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control
Administrators (ASIWPCA), and the Ground Water Protection Council
(GWPC). EPA posted minutes from the work group meetings, background
data, and all written comments on an Internet website and invited all
States and Interstate agencies to participate in the discussion via the
website and contact with work group members.
The work group evaluated a wide range of alternative approaches and
ultimately developed and recommended a new allocation formula. The work
group believed that the formula should largely be based on impairment,
but decided not to give impairment too much weight because of
shortcomings in data related to water quality monitoring. The work
group therefore recommended other surrogates for ``extent of the
pollution problem,'' including surrogates for point and nonpoint
sources of pollution.
Work group members were concerned about the impact of reductions in
funding levels on clean water programs in individual States. A ``safety
net'' was built into the new formula to provide for a gradual
transition to adjusted funding amounts. The revised formula
specifically provides that no State lose more than five percent
compared with the previous year or more than a total of 20 percent
compared with 1998. In addition, a significant increase in the section
106 grant funds appropriated in FY 1999 ensures that no State will
receive less section 106 funding in FY 1999 than it did in FY 1998,
while providing additional resources to [most] States. The funding set-
aside for interstate agencies will be increased to its historic (FY
1976) level of 2.5 percent of the total State monies appropriated under
section 106.
Since no State or interstate agency will receive less funding in FY
1999 than it did in FY 1998, the revised funding formula will be
effective November 5, 1998 for use in distributing FY 1999 section 106
funds to State and interstate agencies. EPA is soliciting comments on
the revised formula for use in FY 2000 and beyond. EPA is particularly
interested in comments on the accuracy of the data bases used in
deriving the formula and how well the components meet the statutory
test of representing the ``extent of the pollution problem'' and
associated workload. After reviewing the comments on the formula, EPA
will adopt an allotment formula for FY 2000 and beyond.
Please send an original and three copies of your comments and
enclosures to W-98-28, Comment Clerk, Water Docket (MC 4101), USEPA,
401 M., St. S.W. Washington, D.C., 20460. Comments must be received or
post-marked by midnight January 4, 1999. Comments may also be submitted
electronically to ow-docket@epa.gov. Electronic comments must be
submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and
form of encryption. Electronic comments must be identified by the
docket number W-98-28. Comments and data will also be accepted on disks
in WP 5.1, 6.1 or ASCII file format. Electronic comments on this notice
may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.
[[Page 59871]]
Dated: October 26, 1998.
J. Charles Fox,
Assistant Administrator for Water.
Table of Contents
I. Definitions
II. Background
A. The Existing Section 106 Allotment Formula
B. Rationale for Formula Revision
C. The Development Process for the Revised Section 106 Allotment
Formulas
III. The Revised Section 106 State Allotment Formula
A. Components
B. Minimum Level of Funding
C. Maximum Annual Funding Increase
D. Set-Asides
E. Update Cycle
IV. The Revised Section 106 Interstate Allotment Formula for FY 1999
I. Definitions
As used herein, the following words and terms will have the meaning
set forth below:
(a) The term ``allotment'' means the sum reserved for each State or
interstate agency from funds appropriated by Congress under the
Sec. 106 Grant Program. The allotments for States and interstate
agencies will be determined by separate formulas. However, both the
Sec. 106 State allotment formula and the Sec. 106 interstate allotment
formula are designed to reflect the extent of the water pollution
problem in the several States.
(b) The term ``State'' means a State, the District of Columbia
(DC), the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (PR), the U.S. Virgin Islands
(VI), Guam (GU), American Samoa (AS), and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). [CWA Sec. 502(3)]
(c) The term ``interstate agency'' means an agency of two or more
States established by, or pursuant to, an agreement or compact approved
by the Congress, or any other agency of two or more States, having
substantial powers or duties pertaining to the control of pollution as
determined and approved by the Administrator. [CWA Sec. 502(2)]
(d) The term ``component'' refers to one of the six factors
selected for use in the revised Sec. 106 State allotment formula. Each
component of the revised formula was selected based on its potential
contribution to the extent of water pollution problems within the
several States and to the workload of State water pollution control
programs.
(e) The term ``element'' refers to one of the constituent factors
used to provide greater specificity to a component in the revised
Sec. 106 State allotment formula. Certain components are composed of
two or more ``elements.'' For example, the non-point source component
of the revised Sec. 106 State allotment formula is composed of an
agricultural element, a logging element, and an abandoned mine element.
(f) The term ``sub-element'' refers to one of the constituent
factors used to provide greater specificity to an element in the
revised Sec. 106 State allotment formula. Certain elements are composed
of two or more ``sub-elements.'' For example, the abandoned mine
element of the non-point source component is composed of a soft-rock
mining sub-element and a hard-rock mining sub-element.
II. Background
A. Description of the Existing Section 106 Allotment Formula
The allotment formula currently employed to allot funds
appropriated under CWA Sec. 106 was first used in FY 1974. The existing
Sec. 106 allotment formula was revised in 1976, and provided for the
implementation of a separate allotment formula for interstate agencies
based on the level of funding each interstate agency had received in FY
1973. The State and interstate allocation ratios were published in the
Federal Register on April 27, 1976. These proportionate shares have
been used to allocate Sec. 106 funds ever since.
The existing Sec. 106 State allotment formula is based on four
point source factors. When the existing formula was first adopted in
1973 (for the determination of FY 1974 allotments), the understanding
was that the number of point sources in a particular State adequately
represented the ``extent of the pollution problem'' [as required by CWA
Sec. 106(b)] in that State. Thus, each of the four point source factors
selected for use in the formula enumerates potential contributors to
point source pollution. The four selected point source factors were:
(1) number of cattle feedlots with more than 1,000 head;
(2) number of industrial dischargers;
(3) number of municipal dischargers; and
(4) number of nuclear, oil, coal, and gas power plants.
The Agency specified that all States and interstate agencies would
be guaranteed an allotment no less than their FY 1973 allotment for FY
1974 and beyond. FY 1973 allotments were distributed according to
Sec. 7 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA). Two
components of the FWPCA Sec. 7 allotment formula, population and
population density, drove approximately five-sixths of the FY 1974
allotments and continue to drive the existing Sec. 106 State allotment
formula.
B. Rationale for Formula Revision
The existing Sec. 106 State allotment formula is based on point
source pollution factors, and minimum levels of funding are determined
largely by population and population density as established in the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Sec. 7 allotment. However adequate
this formula was in 1974, it does not reflect the complexity of current
State water pollution control programs. Also, the data used in the
formula are from the 1960's and early 1970's. In the 25 years since the
formula was developed, much has changed.
EPA recognized the critical need to develop a revised Sec. 106
allotment formula which reflects the current understanding of the
factors that contribute to water quality impairment and which utilizes
current data. Thus, the revised formula is designed to allot funds in a
manner which more accurately reflects the problems that currently
confront State water pollution control programs. To achieve this
objective, the revised Sec. 106 formula is based on six components
which reflect the extent of water quality impairment and associated
potential workload in determining State allotments.
C. The Development Process for the Revised Section 106 Allotment
Formulas
An EPA/State Work Group examined ways in which the existing
Sec. 106 State allotment formula could be updated and made responsive
to the workload associated with water quality impairment. A separate
Interstate Work Group, composed of EPA personnel and representatives
from six interstate agencies, participated in the development of the
revised Sec. 106 interstate allotment formula.
Work Group recommendations contributed heavily to the development
of the revised Sec. 106 allotment formulas. First, to ensure that
monies were directed to the areas where the greatest water quality
problems and the greatest workload exists, weighting factors that
reflected the individual contribution of the six different components
in the revised Sec. 106 State allotment formula were developed. Second,
modulating procedures [e.g., a base level of funding, a maximum
increase in annual funding, etc.] were built into both the revised
Sec. 106 State and interstate allotment formulas to prevent disruption
of State and interstate programs. Third, a five-year update cycle was
implemented in each revised Sec. 106 allotment formula to ensure that
supporting data for the
[[Page 59872]]
formulas would be updated regularly. The weights, modulating
procedures, and the update cycle for the revised Sec. 106 allotment
formulas are discussed more fully in sections III and IV of this
notice.
III. The Revised Section 106 State Allotment Formula
A. Components
The revised Sec. 106 State allotment formula, as defined in this
notice, is based on six components that were selected to more
accurately reflect the extent of the water pollution control problems
in the United States. These components reflect a shift in emphasis from
point source pollution and population data to an emphasis on water
quality impairment and the associated workload. The six components
selected for use in the revised Sec. 106 State allotment formula were:
(1) surface water area;
(2) ground water use;
(3) water quality impairment;
(4) point sources;
(5) non-point sources; and
(6) population of urbanized areas.
A primary reason for the development and adoption of a revised
Sec. 106 State allotment formula was the need to improve the quality
and the consistency of the data used for allocating Sec. 106 funds. The
selected components for the revised Sec. 106 formula are presented in
Table 1 (below) with their associated elements, sub-elements, and
supporting data sources.1 Data sources for the components
were selected on the basis of data availability, currency, quality,
national consistency, and reliability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Note that in the future additional elements and sub-elements
may be considered for inclusion in the revised Sec. 106 allotment
formula if they are deemed appropriate and if they are reflective of
the extent of water quality impairment or State workload.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA invites comments on the revised formula prior to issuing FY2000
planning targets in early 1999. Comments will be accepted until January
4, 1999.
Table 1.--Components of the Revised Section 106 State Allotment Formula
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Formula component Element Sub-element Data source
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Surface Water Area................. .............................. ............................. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census, Statistical Abstract of the United
States.
2. Ground Water Use................... (a) Non-agricultural ............................. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological
withdrawals. Survey, Preliminary Estimates of Water Use in
the United States.
(b) Population served by CWSs ............................. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
that use GW for the majority Water, Safe Drinking Water Information System.
of their source water.
3. Water Quality Impairment........... (a) Impaired rivers and ............................. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
streams (miles). Water, National Water Quality Inventory (based
on Sec. 305(b) reports submitted by the
States).
(b) Impaired lakes, ponds, and
reservoirs (acres)
(c) Impaired estuaries (square
miles)
(d) Impaired wetlands (acres)
(e) Impaired ocean shoreline
(miles)
(f) Impaired Great Lake
shoreline (miles)
4. Potential Point Sources............ (a) Agriculture (total animal ............................. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
units). Census, Census of Agriculture.
(b) Industrial................ (i) Manufacturers............ U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census, Economic Census, Census of Manufactures.
(ii) Mining operations....... U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census, Economic Census, Census of Mineral
Industries.
(iii) Power plants........... U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Coal,
Nuclear, Electric, and Alternate Fuels,
Inventory of Power Plants in the U.S.
(c) Municipal dischargers..... ............................. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water, Wastewater Facilities Database.
5. Potential Non-Point Sources........ (a) Agriculture............... ............................. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census, Census of Agriculture.
(b) Logging................... ............................. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census, Economic Census, Census of Manufactures.
(c) Abandoned mines........... (i) Abandoned soft-rock U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of
(coal) mining operations. Surface Mining, Abandoned Mine Land Inventory
System.
(ii) Abandoned hard-rock U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines,
mining operations. Minerals Availability System/Mineral Inventory
Location System.
6. Population of Urbanized Area....... .............................. ............................. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census, Census of Population and Housing.*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The population living in urban areas (Census designated places with 2,500 or more residents) rather than population living in urbanized areas (one or
more Census designated places and the associated urban fringe that together have 50,000 or more residents) will be used for PR and the Insular Areas
(VI, AS, GU, and CNMI).
[[Page 59873]]
To account for the fact that not all of the selected formula
components contribute equally to the extent of the water pollution
problem within the States, and to address concerns regarding the
current consistency of some of the new data sources, each formula
component will be weighted individually. Component weights will be
phased-in over the course of the first and second five-year
implementation periods, according to the schedule presented in Table 2
(below).
Table 2.--Component Weights in the Revised Section 106 State Allotment Formula--FY 1999 and Beyond
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 1999 FY 2001 FY 2004+
Component (percent) (percent) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Water Area.............................................. 13 13 12
Ground Water Use................................................ 11 12 12
Impairment...................................................... 13 25 35
Potential Point Sources......................................... 25 17 13
Potential Non-Point Sources..................................... 18 15 13
Population of Urbanized Area.................................... 20 18 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 100 100 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The increase in the weight of the impairment component will be
phased in over time to allow for improvement in the consistency of its
data source, the CWA Sec. 305(b) report. This gradual transition will
also provide greater fiscal stability for State and interstate water
pollution control programs.
B. Minimum Level of Funding
Under the revised Sec. 106 State allotment formula, all States will
be allotted a minimum level of funding. In FY 1999, the minimum level
of funding for each State will be the larger of: (1) the guaranteed
base level of funding for which the State qualifies (defined below); or
(2) the FY 1998 Sec. 106 allotment for that State. This second
provision allows for stability during the transition to the revised
Sec. 106 State allotment formula. In FY 2000 and all future years, the
minimum level of funding for a specific State will be the largest of:
(1) the guaranteed base level of funding for which the State qualifies;
(2) 95 percent of the State's Sec. 106 allotment from the previous
fiscal year; or (3) 80 percent of the State's FY 1998 Sec. 106
allotment. By limiting the maximum annual reduction in a State
allotment to 5 percent of the previous fiscal year's allotment and by
limiting the maximum total reduction to 20 percent of the State's FY
1998 Sec. 106 allotment, the revised formula allows for gradual funding
adjustments. These modulating procedures will serve to ease the burden
that unrestricted allotment reductions might otherwise create.
The base level of funding for the fifty States, DC, PR, VI, and GU
will be set at $500,000 for FY 1999, while the base level of funding
for AS and CNMI will be set at $250,000 for FY 1999. The base level of
funding is designed to ensure a minimum level of funding for the
operation of a water quality pollution control program. Beginning in FY
2000, to protect against erosion in the real value of the base level of
funding due to inflation, annual adjustments will be made to the base
level of funding as determined by changes to the Consumer Price Index.
C. Maximum Annual Funding Increase
All States will be subject to a cap on the annual increase in their
Sec. 106 allotment. The maximum funding level any State can receive
will be 150 percent of that State's Sec. 106 allotment from the
previous fiscal year.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Note that the minimum level of funding described in section
III.B. takes precedence over the maximum annual funding increase.
For example, since the FY 1998 allotment for CNMI ($150,251)
represents less than two-thirds of its Base level of funding for FY
1999 ($250,000), CNMI will realize a 66 percent increase in its
allotment for FY 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Set-Asides
A portion of the Sec. 106 appropriation available to States will
continue to be set aside for interstate agencies. For FY 1999 and every
year thereafter, the size of this set-aside will be set at its historic
(FY 1976) level of 2.6 percent of the total Sec. 106 State
appropriation.
Funds will be distributed to interstate agencies on the basis of a
separate allotment formula. The particulars of the revised Sec. 106
interstate allotment formula are described in detail in section IV of
this notice.
EPA will provide a single allotment to each State under the
Sec. 106 Grant Program rather than separate allotments for ground water
and surface water programs. Since this grant program provides one of
the few sources of federal funds for State ground water protection
efforts that, in turn, are critical to the maintenance of water
quality, EPA strongly advises States to target at least 15 percent of
their Sec. 106 allotment for ground water protection programs and
activities. Should the State agency responsible for the administration
of the Sec. 106 grant not include the State's ground water protection
program, the appropriate agency should be immediately informed of the
amount of funds targeted and available for ground water activities.
E. Update Cycle
The data used in the revised Sec. 106 State allotment formula will
be periodically updated. The first update will impact allotments for FY
2001, and will consist of updating the data used to support the
impairment component of the revised formula. These data will be updated
based on 1998 CWA Sec. 305(b) reports. After this initial update, the
data used to support all six components of the revised Sec. 106 State
allotment formula will be updated in 2003 (for use in the determination
of FY 2004 allotments). Thereafter, all data will be updated every five
years (i.e., in FY 2008 for FY 2009 allotments, in FY 2013 for FY 2014
allotments, etc.).
The base level of funding for all States will be updated annually
to account for inflation based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
IV. The Revised Section 106 Interstate Allotment Formula for FY
1999
The interstate set-aside will be allocated to interstate agencies
for FY 1999 and all fiscal years thereafter according to the formula
defined below. The revised Sec. 106 interstate allotment formula will
consist of two parts: (1) a base portion, and (2) a variable portion.
The base portion of the formula ensures that each interstate agency
will receive a minimum base level of funding equal to $125,000, to
provide for coordination activities among its member States. Should the
size of the interstate set-aside decrease due to a reduction in the
total Sec. 106
[[Page 59874]]
appropriation, the minimum level of funding may be modified.
Funds not allocated by the base portion of the revised Sec. 106
interstate allotment formula will be allocated based on the sum of
State allocation ratios from the revised Sec. 106 State allotment
formula for the signatory States in the Compact of each eligible
interstate agency. The allocation ratios for those States involved in
compacts with more than one eligible interstate agency will be
distributed among those interstate agencies based on the percentage of
the State's territory that is situated within the drainage basin or
watershed area covered by each compact.
Revised Section 106 Allotments for States, DC, PR, and the Insular Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entity FY 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut................................................ $1,241,717
Maine...................................................... 952,282
Massachusetts.............................................. 1,877,408
New Hampshire.............................................. 659,035
Rhode Island............................................... 888,532
Vermont.................................................... 518,786
------------
Region One............................................. 6,137,760
============
New Jersey................................................. 2,145,811
New York................................................... 4,293,034
Puerto Rico................................................ 1,263,308
Virgin Islands............................................. 599,364
------------
Region Two............................................. 8,301,517
============
Delaware................................................... 761,034
D.C........................................................ 684,123
Maryland................................................... 1,620,935
Pennsylvania............................................... 3,487,826
Virginia................................................... 1,990,420
West Virginia.............................................. 1,115,516
------------
Region Three........................................... 9,659,854
============
Alabama.................................................... 2,103,431
Florida.................................................... 3,028,010
Georgia.................................................... 2,470,720
Kentucky................................................... 1,202,400
Mississippi................................................ 1,799,009
North Carolina............................................. 3,226,738
South Carolina............................................. 1,594,878
Tennessee.................................................. 1,467,740
------------
Region Four............................................ 16,892,926
============
Illinois................................................... 3,125,087
Indiana.................................................... 1,665,511
Michigan................................................... 4,136,782
Minnesota.................................................. 2,265,180
Ohio....................................................... 2,979,273
Wisconsin.................................................. 3,221,840
------------
Region Five............................................ 17,393,673
============
Arkansas.................................................. 1,241,263
Louisiana.................................................. 2,032,092
New Mexico................................................. 873,803
Oklahoma................................................... 1,428,423
Texas...................................................... 4,341,770
------------
Region Six............................................. 9,917,351
============
Iowa....................................................... 1,756,629
Kansas..................................................... 1,351,923
Missouri................................................... 2,080,385
Nebraska................................................... 1,423,225
------------
Region Seven........................................... 6,612,162
============
Colorado................................................... 1,237,173
Montana.................................................... 988,553
North Dakota............................................... 720,804
South Dakota............................................... 739,929
Utah....................................................... 912,053
Wyoming.................................................... 586,931
------------
Region Eight........................................... 5,185,443
============
Arizona.................................................... 1,105,960
California................................................. 6,334,978
Hawaii..................................................... 858,690
Nevada..................................................... 552,084
American Samoa............................................. 250,000
Guam....................................................... 613,490
Northern Marianas.......................................... 250,000
------------
Region Nine............................................ 9,965,202
============
Alaska..................................................... 586,931
Idaho...................................................... 896,671
Oregon..................................................... 1,558,054
Washington................................................. 2,476,920
------------
Region Ten............................................. 5,518,576
============
U.S. Total............................................. 95,584,464
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised Section 106 Allotments for Interstate Agencies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entity FY 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DRBC.................................................... $332,206
ICPRB................................................... 354,506
ISC..................................................... 380,306
NEIWPCC................................................. 469,406
ORSANCO................................................. 681,006
SRBC.................................................... 334,106
---------------
Total Interstate Set-Aside.......................... 2,551,536
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 98-29664 Filed 11-4-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-60-P
