[Federal Register: October 9, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 196)]
[Notices]
[Page 58333-58341]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr09oc03-82]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-7569-3]
Watershed Initiative: Call for Nominations
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Following the completion of its inaugural year, EPA is
announcing the continuation of the Watershed Initiative by issuing the
second call for nominations of watershed proposals. The Watershed
Initiative is a competitive grant program designed to support studies
of a series of approaches to watershed protection and restoration to
determine if those approaches produce short-term environmental results
and have the potential for long term maintenance in a watershed. The
President's fiscal year (FY) 2004 budget, which is now before Congress,
incorporates a request for $21 million for the Watershed Initiative.
Subject to the availability of appropriations for this purpose, EPA
plans to select through a competitive process up to 20 watersheds
throughout the country for grants to support the study of promising
watershed-based approaches to improving water quality. This notice sets
forth the process that will be used for selecting the watersheds and
serves as the call for nominations from Governors and Tribal Leaders.
For the most part, this process is similar to that of the FY 2003
solicitation. This year, however, EPA will place a somewhat larger
emphasis on studies of (1) market-based approaches to water quality
protection and restoration, and (2) specific approaches to decreasing
hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico.
DATES: The deadline for EPA receipt of nominations, both in hard copy
and in electronic form, is January 15, 2004. Nominations and supporting
materials received after this deadline will not be considered.
ADDRESSES: Two hard copies of the nomination packages must be submitted
in their entirety by express mail or courier service. Deliver the
original to Carol Peterson, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds,
USEPA, Room 7136, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004;
telephone 202-566-1304. The other copy of the nomination package is to
be delivered to the appropriate EPA Regional office (see section IV.C
for names and addresses for the regions). Please mark all submissions
ATTN: Watershed Initiative.
In addition to the hard copies, a portion of the nomination package
must also be submitted electronically to the e-mail address provided.
Please follow the detailed instructions provided in section IV of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Peterson, USEPA, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW (4501T), Washington, DC, 20460; telephone: 202-566-1304; e-mail: initiative.watershed@epa.gov or one of the regional
contacts listed in section IV.C of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section below. Additional information and any updated guidance will be
posted on EPA's Watershed Initiative Web site at http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/initiative
.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
A. The Watershed Initiative
The Watershed Initiative is predicated on the fundamental concept
of the Agency's holistic watershed approach to water resources
management. Both the watershed approach and the Watershed Initiative
focus on multi-faceted plans for protecting and restoring water
resources. Isolated efforts do not provide comprehensive and effective
protection and restoration of the resources. Rather, the nominations
selected to receive Watershed Initiative funding will be for studies of
approaches that go beyond implementing separate, detached activities
and will, instead, focus on the effectiveness of an integrated
ecosystem-based approach to conservation and restoration throughout a
watershed. The selected nominations will include water quality and
ecosystem monitoring and evaluation to provide quantitative data to
determine the effectiveness of addressing water quality issues at the
watershed level.
Last year the Agency conducted a national competition and in May
2003 selected 20 watersheds to award $15 million in grants appropriated
for the new Watershed Initiative. The selected nominations were those
that were most ready to go and likely to achieve environmental results
in a relatively short time period. Those grants will fund watershed
partnerships that are undertaking studies of a variety of promising
activities to support comprehensive watershed-based approaches to
protecting and restoring water resources. For example, over seventy
percent of the selected projects address agricultural pollution; fifty
percent address urban and industrial runoff; fifty percent address the
relationship between water quality and habitat restoration for wildlife
and endangered and/or threatened species; and thirty percent have
projects aimed at the homeowner. Moreover, several projects will study
a more innovative, market-based approach to attaining water quality.
These latter watershed partnerships will test possibilities such as
pollutant trading and crop insurance. More information on these
projects can be found on the Watershed Initiative's Web site listed
above.
B. Goals for 2004
The 2004 Watershed Initiative will continue to build upon the
Agency's watershed approach to water resources
[[Page 58334]]
management. The Initiative will support studies of coalition-based
strategies for activities, such as attaining water quality standards,
protecting and restoring the natural and beneficial uses of
floodplains, and, in general, improving water resources on a watershed
level. Water quality standards establish water quality goals for
specific water bodies and play an important role in watershed
management. Coalition-based strategies that focus on addressing
designated uses in watershed initiatives can help build support for
control actions at the watershed level.
The goal of the Watershed Initiative is to study practical and
efficient models that can be adapted to local circumstances across the
country. The cornerstone of the Initiative is to provide study results
that will help advance the successes of partnerships and coalitions
that have completed the necessary watershed assessments and have a
technically sound watershed plan ready to carry out. EPA believes the
Watershed Initiative will help document the kind of pro-active,
incentive-based protection and restoration measures that will
ultimately yield cleaner water.
In 2004, the Agency plans to continue its focus on studies of
approaches aimed to provide quick, measurable results; partnerships;
innovation; and integration (formerly called program compatibility).
More emphasis, however, will be placed on studies of (1) market-based
approaches and other socio-economic strategies, and (2) the serious and
growing hypoxia problem facing the Gulf of Mexico. A portion of the
appropriation will be devoted to study projects in the Mississippi
River basin that address nutrient loadings related to hypoxia. EPA
hopes that this targeted approach to the problem of hypoxia will help
promote needed changes that are essential to attaining and maintaining
clean water and that can be adapted to other areas throughout the
country.
1. Studies of Market-Based Approaches
Finding solutions to complex water quality problems requires
innovative approaches that can be aligned with core water programs.
Market-based approaches create social and economic incentives for the
implementation of creative pollution reduction strategies, emerging
technologies, and watershed protection measures. Properly designed
programs can improve water quality at substantially lower costs and
provide incentives for voluntary reductions from all sources, point and
nonpoint.
Water quality trading is one important approach that offers
flexibility and efficiency in achieving water quality goals on a
watershed basis. Trading allows a source with relatively higher
pollution control costs to meet a water quality goal or requirement by
using pollution reduction credits created by another source with lower
costs. This approach enables sources in the same watershed to work
together to meet a common goal. EPA considers trading to be an
important component of the Watershed Initiative. Properly designed
trading programs can improve water quality at substantially lower costs
and provide incentives for voluntary reductions from all sources,
especially sources that are not regulated under the Clean Water Act
(CWA).
One example is a nonpoint source selenium load trading program in
the Grassland's Drainage Area in California's San Joaquin Valley. The
selenium load trading program is a cap-and-trade environmental program.
A regulatory agency sets the cap on the selenium that the Grassland
Area Farmers, a group of irrigation and drainage districts, administer
through an internal selenium load trading program. Pursuant to the
trading program, the total allowable selenium load is allocated among
the member irrigation and drainage districts. The districts can either
meet their load allocation or buy selenium load allocations from other
districts. The tradeable loads program has assisted Grassland Area
Farmers in meeting environmental goals in a cost-effective manner.
To promote the concept of trading in relation to fostering
environmental progress, EPA has developed a new Water Quality Trading
Policy, published in the Federal Register on January 13, 2003 (68 FR
1608) and posted on the Web site http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/trading/.
The purpose of this policy is to encourage States, interstate
agencies, and Tribes to develop and implement water quality trading
programs for nutrients, sediments, and other pollutants where
opportunities exist to achieve water quality improvements at reduced
costs. More specifically, the policy is intended to encourage voluntary
trading programs that facilitate the implementation of Total Maximum
Daily Loads (TMDL), reduce the costs of compliance with CWA
regulations, establish incentives for voluntary reductions and promote
watershed-based initiatives. Any trading nominations submitted in
response to this solicitation must conform to this policy.
Some market-based programs already in progress blend regulatory
components and nonregulatory components to achieve environmental
improvements. Market-based approaches can include incentive programs to
encourage conservation land use or management practices. For example,
King County, Washington provides rebates and other tax breaks as an
incentive for property owners to reduce impervious surfaces within the
County. The money raised through this levy on impervious surfaces is
used to provide myriad surface water management services for the
County. Other examples of market-based approaches include flood
insurance programs that insure against loss through investment in the
creation or restoration of wetlands and floodplains, or programs that
insure against agricultural crop loss where management practices to
reduce pollution have been implemented. Still other examples of market-
based approaches involve state-private partnership programs to reduce
regulatory compliance costs, implement pollution controls, or institute
operational changes that benefit water quality.
Market-based approaches have tremendous potential to instigate
change. Trading programs and other market-based approaches can be
powerful tools to encourage innovative pollution control technologies
and land management practices. EPA wants to fund Watershed Initiative
projects that utilize market-based approaches and other socio-economic
strategies to determine if they produce real, measurable environmental
results.
2. Studies of Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico
By far, the largest watershed within the United States is the
Mississippi River Basin. Draining all or parts of 31 States, it covers
1.2 million square miles (40% of the US) and travels over 2,300 miles
before discharging 612,000 cubic feet of water per second into the Gulf
of Mexico. On the Gulf's Texas-Louisiana continental shelf, an area of
hypoxia forms during the summer months. This ``dead zone,''
characterized by diminished sunlight and low oxygen levels, is an area
virtually devoid of marine life. The hypoxic area has been growing
significantly over the years and, at 7,000 square miles, it is double
the size it was in 1993. While there are many factors contributing to
the Gulf hypoxia, scientific evidence indicates that excess nutrients,
particularly nitrogen and to a lesser extent phosphorus, from the
Mississippi River
[[Page 58335]]
drainage basin drive its onset and duration. Studies show that a
significant portion (90%) of the nitrates entering the Gulf comes from
a variety of human activities, including discharges from sewage
treatment plants, and stormwater runoff from city streets and
agricultural farms. Much of the nutrient load comes from wastewater
discharges and agricultural lands in Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota
and Ohio.
Reducing hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico has been an Agency priority
since the 1998 passage of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research
and Control Act. The Act called for the creation of the Mississippi
River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force, which was then
charged with developing an Action Plan to reduce hypoxia in the Gulf.
The Action Plan was completed and delivered to Congress in January
2001. The Action Plan can be found at http://www.epa.gov/msbasin/actionplan.htm
.
EPA sees the Watershed Initiative as an opportunity to invoke
watershed approaches in the Mississippi drainage basin to ascertain if
they result in real, measurable reductions in excessive nutrient
levels. As part of this year's Initiative, the Agency is seeking
proposals that look at holistic strategies consistent with the Action
Plan to reduce the amount of nutrients, particularly nitrogen and
phosphorus, entering the Gulf with the goal of testing approaches to
stay the further growth of the hypoxic area. Such field studies may
include, for example, determining the measurable results of: improving
nutrient management programs on farms, restoring or constructing
wetlands and vegetated riparian areas, floodplain management and
restoration, and enhancing denitrification and nitrogen retention
opportunities throughout the river basin and along the coastal plain of
Louisiana.
From a national perspective, the nutrient enrichment and resultant
hypoxic condition in the Gulf of Mexico is significant in terms of its
sheer size, persistence, and location. However, the concern about
coastal eutrophication is not limited to the inner shelf off Louisiana.
In 1990, it was estimated that nearly half of the nation's estuaries
were susceptible to eutrophication. EPA envisions that results from the
selected watersheds within the Mississippi River basin will enhance
knowledge and understanding of hypoxia and that successful nutrient
reduction approaches related to the causes of hypoxia can be adapted to
other bays and estuaries along our coasts.
C. Funding Availability
The Administration has requested $21 million for FY 2004 which is
subject to the availability of Federal appropriations. EPA will
announce when funds become available on its Web site (http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/initiative/
), and provide, to the extent
possible, information regarding the appropriation request as it goes
through the Congressional budget process.
EPA expects to use most of the money to support competitive grants
for up to 20 selected watersheds--a portion of those watersheds being
within the Mississippi River Basin. EPA anticipates that typical grant
awards for the selected watersheds will range from $300,000 to
$1,300,000, depending on the amount requested and the overall size and
need of the project. The total number and amount of the awards will
depend on the amount of funds Congress appropriates.
Also, as in 2003, about five percent of the total appropriation
will go toward (1) a national conference for the watershed
organizations selected to receive grants, and (2) assistance agreements
to organizations offering capacity building programs for all watershed
organizations. This latter effort will entail enhancing national tools,
training, and technical assistance that will help local partnerships be
more effective at improving watershed health, so that all watershed
organizations, from fledgling groups to sophisticated coalitions, will
benefit from the Initiative.
II. Statutory Authority and Eligibility Requirements
A. Authority
EPA expects to award the Watershed Initiative grants under the
authority of section 104(b)(3) of the Clean Water Act. Regulations
pertaining to EPA grants and other assistance agreements are in Title
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts, 30, 31, and 40.
All costs incurred under this program must be allowable under the
applicable OMB Cost Circulars: A-87 (States and local governments), A-
122 (nonprofit organizations), or A-21 (universities). Copies of these
circulars can be found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/. In
accordance with EPA policy and the OMB circulars, as appropriate, any
recipient of funding must agree not to use assistance funds for
lobbying, fund-raising, or political activities (e.g., lobbying members
of Congress or lobbying for other Federal grants, cooperative
agreements or contracts).
B. Eligible Activities
Section 104(b)(3) of the Clean Water Act authorizes the Agency to
award grants to ``conduct and promote the coordination and acceleration
of, research, investigations, experiments, training, demonstrations,
surveys, and studies relating to the causes, effects, extent,
prevention, reduction, and elimination of [water] pollution.'' Grant
funds awarded as part of this Initiative may only be used for these
activities and all grant-funded activities must support the watershed
workplan submitted.
These activities seek to advance the state of knowledge, gather
information, or transfer information. Demonstrations are projects that
exhibit new or experimental technologies, methods, or approaches and
disseminate the results so that others can benefit from the knowledge
gained. Research projects may include the application of established
practices when they contribute to learning about an environmental
concept or problem.
1. The Watershed Initiative under 104(b)(3). The Watershed
Initiative is designed to award grants to support studies of a series
of possible approaches to watershed restoration to determine if those
approaches produce short-term measurable environmental results in a
watershed, or to support demonstration projects to test new and
innovative approaches to water quality. For example, if a watershed
organization identifies particular environmental threats or impairments
to its waters, and proposes to look at a group or series of
interrelated projects to address those impairments and includes
measurement tools to achieve and judge their success, the proposal
could be considered a study under section 104(b)(3). Activities
involving the implementation of pollution control measures are eligible
for funding only to the extent they are necessary to carry out the
study or demonstration project(s). Activities involving wildlife are
eligible only to the extent they are conducted as part of a study or
demonstration relating to the causes, effects, extent, prevention,
reduction or elimination of water pollution.
2. Exceptions. While certain projects may fall within the scope of
section 104(b)(3), the Agency has decided that particular activities do
not fit the goals or intentions of the Watershed Initiative. These
include any proposals to directly support regulatory activities
required under the CWA. Primarily this entails funds for the
development of TMDLs, Phase II Stormwater projects, and other Office of
Water regulatory programs.
[[Page 58336]]
Proposals to study the effectiveness of implementing TMDLs, however,
are eligible. The construction of buildings or other major structures
also will not be funded under this Initiative. Proposals containing
subgrant programs (also called pass-through grants) are allowed, but
the subgrant portion must account for no more than 20% of the requested
funding amount.
C. Eligible Applicants
Under section 104(b)(3) of the CWA, the following entities are
eligible to receive grants: State and Tribal water pollution control
agencies, interstate or inter-tribal agencies, other public or non-
profit private agencies, institutions, organizations, and individuals.
The term ``State'' is defined to include the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the
Northern Mariana Islands. All non-profit watershed organizations are
eligible, including those in the Agency's National Estuary Program.
Watershed organizations that were selected for funding in 2003 can not
apply until their previous Watershed Initiative funding is exhausted.
III. Competing for a Watershed Initiative Grant
EPA will select watersheds and the watershed grantees through a
national competition. Activities proposed for funding via the Watershed
Initiative are not necessarily expected to address the entire
watershed, but they are expected to have been developed based on
comprehensive assessments and plans for the watershed.
Interjurisdictional watershed partnerships, that is, those that involve
adjacent authorities, or that transcend international boundaries, are
encouraged. Watershed nominations that encompass more than governmental
authority will be considered interjurisdictional provided that the
appropriate water agency in the adjacent jurisdiction is a partner or
otherwise supports the project(s).
For practical purposes, in this context, the term ``nomination'' is
meant to include the proposed workplan along with the required
supporting materials. The ``nominee'' in this case is the watershed
organization that is vying for the grant. Watershed nominations may
include a single project or multiple projects within the watershed.
Nominations will be selected based on the quality of the written
materials received, and adherence to the selection criteria and goals
of the Initiative. Emphasis will be placed on those proposed projects
with clear, measurable environmental indicators and an executable
monitoring plan. Funding decisions will be made based on the evaluation
criteria outlined in section III.C of this notice. EPA will invite only
nominees whose initial proposals are selected under this Initiative to
submit detailed final proposals (see section V.A).
A. Nomination and Selection Process
Watersheds must be nominated by Governors or Tribal Leaders. (For
the purposes of this notice, a tribal nomination may be submitted by a
Tribal Official.) Each Governor or Tribal Leader may prepare or solicit
watershed proposals from eligible entities in a manner most appropriate
to their State or Tribe, and nominate the most meritorious to EPA.
Governors or Tribal Leaders are invited to nominate a maximum of
two State or Tribal watersheds each. There is, however, no limit on the
number of inter-state or joint State and Tribal watersheds that can be
nominated. For inter-state or joint State and Tribal watersheds, any of
the involved Governors/Tribal Leaders may submit the nomination. Such
watershed nominations must include the endorsement of all partnering
State Governors or Tribal Leaders or Officials in their nomination
package.
Governors and Tribal Leaders are to submit their watershed
nominations to EPA (see section IV for details). All nominations will
be screened by EPA staff prior to review to determine if they are
eligible, complete, and in accordance with the instructions provided in
this notice. If any of the required elements of the nomination package
are not submitted, EPA may choose to contact the nominee.
Once received by EPA, the nominations will undergo two levels of
review--one at the regional level and one at the national level. Each
of the Agency's Regional Offices will convene a Review and Evaluation
Panel that will assess how well the nominations meet the evaluation
criteria described below. Regions 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 will convene a
separate panel session to review and evaluate hypoxia plans. Hypoxia
proposals not ranked sufficiently high to merit recommendation for the
hypoxia funds will be placed in competition with the other nominations
received for general Watershed Initiative funds. Based on the panel
review and recommendation, each Regional Administrator will then
forward the Region's top four candidates to EPA's Office of Water at
Headquarters. Regions 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 will seek to include a
minimum of one hypoxia nomination in their transmittal.
Upon receipt of the Regional recommendations, the Office of Water
will convene a Technical Advisory Panel at the national level
consisting of representatives from the Agency's Program and Regional
Offices to review and rank the watershed nominations. Other Federal
agencies may be invited to participate in this review. Again, hypoxia
proposals will be evaluated and scored separately. In addition to the
evaluation criteria listed below, factors such as geographic diversity,
project diversity, watershed size, urban/rural mix, and cost will be
considered in ranking nominations for consideration by the
Administrator. The Administrator will select the watersheds to be
funded.
EPA expects to announce the watershed nominations selected under
this Initiative early in calendar year 2004 and to complete the grant
award process, including final grant workplan negotiations through the
appropriate EPA Regional Office, by spring 2004. In general, grants
awarded will be one-time awards and grant recipients should use the
funds within 2-3 years. Subsequent funding would involve a new call for
watershed nominations and is predicated on continued appropriations.
Therefore, any proposal for work beyond the initial funding period
would need to be submitted through the competitive process and will not
receive preferential consideration based on the applicant's previous
award.
B. Required Components of the Nomination Package
In preparing nomination materials, nominees are to keep in mind the
evaluation criteria by which their overall nomination, i.e,
interrelated individual projects, will be judged. Within these required
components, nominees should address completely and to the best of their
ability the criteria the Agency will be using in its evaluation as
outlined in section III.C below.
Each nomination package must contain the components listed in this
section. Failure to include any of this information could result in
disqualification and removal from the selection process. Conversely,
additional, unsolicited material is strongly discouraged and any such
material submitted will not be considered.
1. Nomination Letter. A letter signed by the Governor or Tribal
Leader formally nominating the watershed for consideration for funding
under the Watershed Initiative must accompany each nomination package.
[[Page 58337]]
2. Title Page. The title page must indicate: (1) The name of the
watershed along with the designated 8-digit HUC code(s), (2) nominee
contact information, i.e., name, affiliation, address, telephone, and
e-mail of the person with whom the Agency should correspond, and (3)
whether the nomination is devoted to hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico.
3. Abstract. A 150-word or less summary of the nomination.
4. Workplan Description. The narrative description of the workplan
components is limited to a total of ten, double-spaced pages in which
the following components described below are addressed. Note that the
page limits for each component below add up to greater than 10 pages
and that nominees should adjust their nomination packages in a manner
that best fits their needs.
(See section IV.A for complete formatting instructions.)
(a) Introduction (2 pages maximum)
Characterize the watershed and overall watershed planning efforts.
Describe what efforts have been undertaken to improve watershed health,
next steps, and future plans. An assessment of the natural resource and
environmental conditions, and an identification of problem sources and
areas for treatment are required. These include:
(1) A description of the watershed's biological, physical, and, if
relevant, social and/or cultural characteristics.
(2) An identification of the threats and impairments facing the
watershed, focusing on those that will be addressed by the proposal.
(3) An overall description of the watershed plan including short-
and long-term watershed goals.
(4) An identification of the assessments and plans that have been
completed to date.
(b) Description of the Proposed Study Projects (7 pages maximum)
Describe the projects to be funded under the Watershed Initiative
grant. These should be described in terms of applied field studies or
demonstrations to yield potentially positive environmental results. The
following information must be included:
(1) An explanation of how the project or aggregation of the
individual projects is expected to affect watershed health.
(2) A detailed description of each project (if more than one)
including: (i) a description of the components and goals of the
project(s), (ii) a schedule for implementing the project(s); (iii) a
summary of the costs of the project(s) with reference to the appended
itemized budget for details; and (iv) milestones for determining
whether or not the intended goals of the watershed study project(s) are
being realized.
(3) A monitoring and evaluation component along with identified
environmental indicators. Attention should be given to baseline data
requirements. This component should include performance measures and
progress goals, as well as a description of how the ultimate success of
the projects will be measured. Performance measures must be
environmental (e.g., chemical or microbial levels attained). Other
measures to be monitored should be infrastructural (e.g., additional
partnerships formed) and implementational (e.g., best management
practices instituted). The progress and performance of the projects
must be measurable by technically sound practices.
(4) A description of how the projects complement or are consistent
with other EPA, Federal, and/or State programs or mandates. Other
Federal contributors or supporting partners should also be identified.
(c) Description of Project Management (2 pages maximum)
Provide a biography on the project leader(s) (not to exceed one-
half page each) describing qualifications for managing the project(s)
and focusing on grant management and watershed management capabilities
and experience. Identify the entity that will be the grantee and thus
responsible for the administration of the grant workplan and for being
the fiscal agent receiving the funds. Include academic experience only
if relevant to the proposal. Do not send resumes.
(d) Description of Outreach Activities (1 page maximum)
Describe the information and outreach plan that will be used to
enhance public understanding of the watershed and encourage
participation in the local project or projects, and future activities
regarding implementing the goals of the watershed plan. Because the
selected watersheds are intended to serve as models for other
communities, this outreach plan must include activities for
transferring the knowledge gained from this effort to other areas.
5. Budget. Provide a detailed breakdown of cost by category for
each project.
(a) Standard Budget Form. To facilitate the compilation and review
of financial information, the Agency is providing a standard form for
potential applicants to use when submitting project budgets. This form
(Table 1) may be reconstructed or downloaded from the Watershed
Initiative Web site at http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/initiative/budget.form.
All budget information, including matching funds and other
leveraged services, and travel cost to the annual conference, must be
provided on this form. (Information on matching funds and the annual
conference is described in sections III.B(b) and (c) below). Nominees
should include cost estimates for each of the proposed project
activities to be conducted under the grant. Explanations of the costs
associated with each entry should be included in the narrative
description portion of the nomination package.
Table 1. Budget Information--EPA Watershed Initiative Grant Program \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION A--BUDGET SUMMARY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watershed Project, Activity or Work Plan Element Federal Non-Federal Total
--------------------------------------------------------
1. $ $ $
--------------------------------------------------------
2. $ $ $
--------------------------------------------------------
3. $ $ $
--------------------------------------------------------
4. $ $ $
--------------------------------------------------------
Totals $ $ $
--------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 58338]]
SECTION B--BUDGET CATEGORIES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watershed Project, Activity or Work Plan Element Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Categories (1) (2) (3) (4)
------------------
a. Personal $ $ $ $ $
b. Fringe
Benefits
------------------
c. Travel
------------------
d. Equipment
------------------
e. Supplies
------------------
f. Contractual
------------------
g. Construction
------------------
h. Other
------------------
i. Total Direct
Charges
(sum line a-h)
------------------
j. Indirect
Charges
------------------
Totals (sum $ $ $ $ $
line i-j)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excerpted from Standard Form 424A, OMB Circular A-102.
(b) Matching Requirement. EPA is requiring applicants to
demonstrate a minimum non-Federal match of 25% of the total cost of the
project or projects (i.e., EPA will fund a maximum of 75% of the total
cost, including matching funds). The Agency considers this matching
contribution as evidence of community support and commitment, and an
opportunity to increase the overall scope of the proposed project. EPA
encourages applicants to leverage as much investment as possible. In
addition to cash, matching funds can come from in-kind goods and
services such as the use of volunteers and their donated time,
equipment, expertise, etc., consistent with the regulation governing
matching fund requirements (40 CFR 31.24 or 40 CFR 30.23). Other
Federal funds may not be used to meet the match requirement for this
grant program unless authorized by the statute governing the use of the
other Federal funds.
Tribes and Tribal watershed groups may be exempt from this match
requirement if they are constrained to such an extent that fulfilling
the match requirement would impose undue hardship. EPA acknowledges the
limited means of many Tribes and the difficulty they may have in
obtaining non-Federal matching contributions. Tribes wishing to be
exempt from the minimum 25% match requirement must submit a one-page
written request with justification. Exemption requests should be sent
directly to the EPA Headquarters contact listed in section IV.C 45 days
prior to the nomination deadline. If approved, the nomination will be
scored as if it met the minimum 25% match.
(c) Annual Conference. Watershed organizations selected for grant
funding will be required to attend an annual two-day National Watershed
Initiative Conference. The purpose of this conference is to provide
these watershed organizations with training and support to better
restore, protect, and manage their watersheds, and to help position
them to teach other watershed groups by their example. The goals of
this conference are to:
(1) Transfer information about innovative technical tools available
for watershed restoration, protection and management. Provide
assistance on how and where to get more information at the Federal,
State, Tribal and local levels.
(2) Provide training to conference attendees on how to maximize the
use of Federal programs in implementing their Watershed Initiative
projects, for example, integration and use of other resources available
under the CWA and Safe Drinking Water Act.
(3) Plan for translating individual project successes into models
to be replicated by other local watershed organizations across the
country.
(4) Provide grant recipients with opportunities to share successful
approaches with each other and other peer-to-peer learning
opportunities.
Attendance at the conference will be mandatory and will be one of
the Terms and Conditions of the grant. The grantee will be allowed to
use the grant funds to pay for travel and lodging. The cost of holding
the conference will be paid for by EPA. If the recipient wishes to use
the award money for travel expenses, these costs must be included in
the submitted proposed budget. The Agency will make every effort to
hold the two-day conference in a central location to minimize travel
costs.
(d) Information Technology. Also as a Term and Condition of the
grant, recipients will be required to institute standardized reporting
requirements into their workplans and include such costs in their
budgets. All environmental data will be required to be entered into the
Agency's Storage and Retrieval (STORET) data system. STORET is a
repository for water quality, biological, and other physical data used
by State environmental agencies, EPA and other Federal agencies,
universities, private citizens, and many other organizations. Training
on how to use STORET will be provided at the annual conference.
Watershed organizations may also want to contact their State agency
responsible for entering data into the system. More information about
STORET can be found at http://www.epa.gov/STORET.
6. Appendices. To substantiate the information contained in the
narrative portion of the submission, documentation to verify
partnerships and matching funds is required. Items that must accompany
the narrative
[[Page 58339]]
description and may be submitted as appendices include the following.
(a) Signed letter(s) from active partners indicating their
commitment to implementing the workplan or for specific proposed
projects.
(b) A minimum of one signed letter from an entity committing to
provide matching funds, either in cash or in-kind goods and services,
including the total value of the commitment toward the projects.
(c) For interjurisdictional nominations, a signed letter(s) from
the appropriate organization in the adjacent State, Tribe, or country
expressing their support and participation in the proposed project(s).
For example, a letter from another governor, Tribal leader, State water
commissioner, State water quality director, environmental director, or
similar positions in Canada or Mexico is acceptable.
(d) Maps (optional).
(e) Supplementary Technical Information (optional). If the proposal
includes a new or otherwise not widely known technology or methodology,
a one-page description may be appended.
C. Evaluation Criteria
Watershed nominations will be reviewed, evaluated, and scored based
on the following criteria with a possible total score of 60 points. In
addition to the points awarded for the criteria, up to 5 additional
points will be awarded to nominations that are interjurisdictional and
have been submitted with the proper supporting letter(s). Rather than
having a bonus category, these points will be a subsection of the Broad
Support category described below.
1. Innovation (10 points). Reviewers will be looking for
progressive and forward-thinking projects when evaluating the
nominations, and as such, watershed nominations that undertake unique,
innovative, or novel approaches to environmental problem-solving will
be scored higher. While the Agency recognizes that there can be
innovative approaches that are not market-based, maximum points will be
awarded to nominations that incorporate market-based approaches to
water quality.
2. Measurement of Environmental Results (total of 30 points).
Successful nominees must demonstrate an in-depth knowledge of the
watershed ecology and present a sound approach for potentially
combating threats or impairments to the water system. For this
criteria, reviewers will focus on the following components:
(a) Feasibility (10 points). Reviewers will look at the readiness
of the nomination. Those projects that can be implemented quickly will
receive more points. Nominations will be evaluated on the technical
merit and adequacy of each project. Reviewers will favor nominations
that describe projects that are part of larger comprehensive watershed
assessments and plans, and reflect an ecosystem-based approach to
conservation and restoration. Points will be awarded based on the
overall soundness of the nomination from both an ecological and design
perspective. In summary, higher scores will be given to those nominees
that have demonstrated an understanding of priority water resource
problems within the watershed, have substantially completed the
assessment and planning phase, and are prepared to begin work.
(b) Experience (5 points). Nominations will be scored based on the
qualifications of the nominee focusing on management and technical
capabilities. Reviewers will assess the past experience of project
leader(s) and/or partners in designing, implementing, and effectively
managing and coordinating activities. Communities or organizations that
have no prior experience and have developed their preliminary workplan
will be evaluated on the basis of their proposal and their potential to
effectively manage and oversee all phases of the proposed workplan and
demonstrated working relationship with their partners.
(c) Tangible Measures (10 points). A nomination will be scored
based on how well it is supported by a clearly articulated set of
performance and progress measures, and identified environmental
indicators. A more detailed monitoring and data collection strategy
will be preferred. Reviewers will evaluate the workplan in relation to
its likelihood to achieve predicted measurable, defensible
environmental results in a relatively short time period, including
potentially attaining performance expectations, reaching project goals,
and producing on-the-ground, quantifiable environmental change using
sound science.
(d) Integration (5 points). Reviewers will evaluate the extent to
which the workplan and proposed project(s) are linked to other existing
State or Federal programs. Points will be awarded to those watershed
nominations that integrate the common goals and complement the ongoing
efforts occurring at the Federal, State, or local level.
3. Broad Support (total of 10 points). Acknowledging and responding
to representative interests from a broad and varied perspective is
quintessential to any successful watershed enterprise. This criteria
can be met by illustrating and substantiating a strong collaborative
effort.
(a) Partnerships (5 points). Watershed nominations that incorporate
a wide variety of public, private, and non-profit participation will be
favored. The score for this criterion will be based on the level to
which a nominee can demonstrate strong and diverse stakeholder
stewardship and support. Reviewers will look for documented, effective
working relationships among State and local entities, along with
evidence of broad-based community involvement.
(b) Interjurisdictionality (5 points). Points will be awarded to
nominations that actively involve more than one governmental entity, be
it municipal, county, State, Tribe, Federal or country. Reviewers will
look at the depth and breadth of jurisdictional participation and will
also take into consideration any significant parties that are
noticeably absent in lending their support of the nomination.
4. Outreach (5 points). Proposals will be judged on the design and
breadth of their outreach program. Those proposals that demonstrate a
clear strategy for transferring the knowledge and experience garnered
over the next few years to other watersheds with similar environmental
conditions will score higher. Points will also be awarded for training
and educational approaches to disseminating watershed information.
5. Financial Integrity (5 points). Points will be awarded based on
the adequacy of the budget information provided, and whether the budget
is reasonable and clearly presented. Proposals that exceed the minimum
match requirement or can certify a broad range of leveraging capacity
will be scored higher.
IV. Call for Nominations
EPA invites each Governor and Tribal Leader to submit nominations
for grants under the 2004 Watershed Initiative.
A. Format of Nomination Package
Each nomination package must contain: (1) A one-page cover letter
signed by the Governor or Tribal Leader, (2) a title page with
appropriate information, (3) an abstract, (4) a workplan description,
(5) the budget form, and (6) letter(s) and certification(s) of support.
Maps and supplementary technical information are optional. The workplan
description of the nomination must be no more than ten double-spaced
pages long, using a 12-point conventional font and one inch margins.
This section must include all of the required components listed in
section III.B. To ensure a fair and equitable
[[Page 58340]]
evaluation of the nominations, please do not exceed the above limits. A
nomination that contains a workplan narrative that exceeds ten double-
spaced pages will not be considered. The title page and 150-word or
less abstract will not count toward the 10-page limit. The entire
nomination package should be printed on one side only of 8\1/2\''x11''
paper and unbound. Appended project budget form, maps, letters of
support, and match certifications will not count toward the 10-page
limit.
B. Submission of Nominations
1. Electronic. EPA is requiring that a portion of the nomination be
submitted electronically. Please send an electronic copy of only the
title page, abstract, workplan description, and budget form to the electronic mailbox at initiative.watershed@epa.gov. Electronic
submissions are limited to 120 KB in size and one submission per
nomination. Please do not send maps, letters of support, match
certifications, or pictures of any kind via the electronic mailbox. The
subject line must be in the format ``STATE--Watershed Name'' (e.g.,
MD--Rock Creek). No confidential business information should be sent
via e-mail. The deadline for all electronic submissions is 12:00 pm
Eastern time on January 15, 2004. If unusual or extraordinary
circumstances prevent electronic submission of the nomination, please
contact the appropriate Regional contact person listed below to discuss
alternate arrangements.
2. Paper. Two hard copies of the complete nomination package
(including all nominating and support letters) are required to be
delivered--the original package to EPA Headquarters and a copy to the
appropriate Regional Office. All names and addresses are listed below.
Mark all submissions: ATTN: EPA Watershed Initiative.
All paper nominations must be received by EPA by January 15, 2004.
C. Addresses and EPA Contacts
Please direct questions to your Regional contact person listed
below.
Headquarters
Submissions must be delivered to: Carol Peterson, Office of
Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds; U.S. EPA; Rm. 7136; 1301 Constitution
Avenue; NW, Washington, DC 20004. Headquarters Contact: Carol Peterson, telephone 202-566-1034; e-mail initiative.watershed@epa.gov.
Regions
Region I--Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, New
Hampshire
Submissions must be delivered to: William Walsh-Rogalski; U.S. EPA
Region 1; 1 Congress Street, Suite 1100-Mail Code RAA; Boston, MA
02114-2023. Contacts: William Walsh-Rogalski or Lynne Hamjian,
telephones 617-918-1035 and 617-918-1601; e-mails walshrogalski.william@epa.gov and hamjian.lynne@epa.gov, respectively.
Region II--New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands
Submissions must be delivered to: Paul Molinari; U.S. EPA Region 2;
290 Broadway; 24th Floor; New York, NY 10007-1866; telephone 212-637-
3886.
Contacts: Theresa Faber or Cyndy Belz, telephones 212-637-3844 and 212-637-3832; e-mails faber.theresa@epa.gov and belz.cyndy@epa.gov,
respectively.
Region III--Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia,
Washington, DC
Submissions must be delivered to: Marion White; U.S. EPA Region 3;
Mail Code 3WP12; 1650 Arch Street; Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029.
Contact: Marion White, telephone 315-814-5714; e-mail white.marion@epa.gov.
Region IV--Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee
Submissions must be delivered to: William L. Cox; U.S. EPA Region
4; Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center; 15th Floor; 61 Forsyth Street, SW;
Atlanta, GA 30303-3104.
Contact: William L. Cox, telephone 404-562-9351; e-mail cox.williaml@epa.gov.
Region V--Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin
Submissions must be delivered to: Paul Thomas; U.S. EPA Region 5;
Mail code WW-16J; 77 W. Jackson Blvd; Chicago, IL 60604.
Contact: Paul Thomas, telephone 312-886-7742; e-mail thomas.paul@epa.gov.
Region VI--Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, New Mexico
Submissions must be delivered to: Brad Lamb; U.S. EPA Region 6;
Mail Code 6WQ-EW; 1445 Ross Avenue; Dallas, TX 75202.
Contact: Brad Lamb, telephone 214-665-6683; e-mail lamb.brad@epa.gov.
Region VII--Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska
Submissions must be delivered to: Julie Elfving; U.S. EPA Region 7;
WWPD/GPCB; 901 North 5th Street; Kansas City, KS 66101.
Contact: Julie Elfving, telephone 913-551-7475; e-mail elfving.julie@epa.gov.
Region VIII--Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah
Submissions must be delivered to: Ayn Schmit; U.S. EPA Region 8;
Mail code 999; 18th Street, Suite 300; Denver, CO 80202-2466.
Contact: Ayn Schmit, telephone 303-312-6220; e-mail schmit.ayn@epa.gov.
Region IX--Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, American Samoa, Mariana
Islands, Guam
Submissions must be delivered to: Sam Ziegler; U.S. EPA Region 9;
Mail Code WTR-3; 75 Hawthorne Street; San Francisco, CA 94105.
Contact: Sam Ziegler, telephone 415-972-3399; e-mail ziegler.sam@epa.gov.
Region X--Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington
Submissions must be delivered to: Bevin Reid; U.S. EPA Region 10;
Mail code ECO-086; 1200 Sixth Avenue; Seattle, WA 98101.
Contact: Bevin Reid, telephone 206-553-1566; e-mail reid.bevin@epa.gov.
V. Post-Selection Regulatory Requirements
A. Applying for a Grant
EPA will invite only nominees whose initial nominations are
selected under this Initiative to submit detailed final proposals. Once
selected to submit a grant application, the nominees will have 60 days
to complete the formal grant application process (i.e., Application for
Federal Assistance, Standard Form 424 et al). The standard EPA grants
application package must be filed according to Agency guidelines.
Detailed information and assistance, including an application kit,
required forms, and a check list, can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ogd/AppKit/.
In anticipation of this process, all potential nominees
may want to explore the above Web site for useful and pertinent
information prior to preparing and submitting their nomination
materials.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number for this program
is 66.439 Targeted Watershed Initiative. Any disputes regarding
proposals or applications submitted in response to these guidelines
will be resolved in accordance with 40 CFR 30.63 and part 31, subpart
F. Applicants should clearly
[[Page 58341]]
mark information they consider confidential. EPA will make final
confidentiality determinations in accordance with regulations in 40 CFR
part 2, subpart B.
Although the selections will be announced at the national level,
Watershed Initiative grants will be awarded and managed by the
respective EPA Regional Offices. Selected nominees may be asked to
modify objectives, workplans, or budgets prior to final approval of the
grant award. The exact amount of funds to be awarded, the final scope
of activities, the duration of the projects, and specific role of the
EPA Regional project coordinator will be determined in the pre-award
negotiations between the selected nominee and EPA. The designated EPA
Regional Contact listed in section IV.C will be available to provide
additional guidance in completing the grant application, and other
necessary forms, and answering any questions. EPA will also work with
the applicant to comply with the Intergovernmental review requirements
of Executive Order 12372 and 40 CFR part 29. EPA reserves the right
reject all proposals and make no awards.
B. Project Implementation and Management
Project monitoring and reporting requirements can be found in 40
CFR 30.50-30.54, 40 CFR 31.40-31.45 and 40 CFR 40.160. In general,
grantees are responsible for managing the day-to-day operations and
activities supported by the grant to assure compliance with applicable
Federal requirements, and for ensuring that established milestones and
performance goals are being achieved. Performance reports and financial
reports must be submitted quarterly and are due 30 days after the
reporting period. The final report is due 90 days after the grant has
expired. Grant managers should consult, and work closely with, their
Regional contact person throughout the award period.
Certain quality assurance and/or quality control (QA/QC) and peer
review requirements are applicable to the collection of environmental
data. Applicants should allow sufficient time and resources for this
process in their proposed projects. Environmental data are any
measurements or information that describe environmental processes,
location, or condition; ecological or health effects and consequences;
or the performance of environmental technology. Environmental data also
include information collected directly from measurements, produced from
models, and obtained from other sources such as data bases or published
literature.
Regulations pertaining to QA/QC requirements can be found in 40 CFR
30.54 and 31.45. Additional guidance can be found at http://www.epa.gov/quality/qa_docs.html#noeparqt
.
Dated: September 29, 2003.
G. Tracy Mehan,
Assistant Administrator for Water.
[FR Doc. 03-25401 Filed 10-8-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P