[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 196 (Thursday, October 9, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58333-58341]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-25401]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: [email protected] 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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected].
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 
[email protected] and [email protected], 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 [email protected] and [email protected], 
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 
[email protected].
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 
[email protected].
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 
[email protected].
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 
[email protected].
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 
[email protected].
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 
[email protected].
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 
[email protected].
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 
[email protected].

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