Targeted Watersheds Grant Program: Call for Nominations, 8364-8372 [05-3184]
Download as PDF
8364
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 33 / Friday, February 18, 2005 / Notices
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[ER–FRL–6660–7]
Environmental Impact Statements and
Regulations; Availability of EPA
Comments
Availability of EPA comments
prepared pursuant to the Environmental
Review Process (ERP), under Section
309 of the Clean Air Act and Section
102(2)(c) of the National Environmental
Policy Act, as amended. Requests for
copies of EPA comments can be directed
to the Office of Federal Activities at
(202) 564–7167. An explanation of the
ratings assigned to draft environmental
impact statements (EISs) was published
in FR dated April 2, 2004 (69 FR 17403).
Draft EISs
ERP No. D–AFS–J65428–CO Rating
EC2, Vail Valley Forest Health Project,
Proposed Landscape-Scale Vegetation
Management and Fuels Reduction,
White River National Forest, Holy Cross
Ranger District, Eagle County, CO.
Summary: EPA expressed
environmental concerns about potential
effects to aquatic and terrestrial
resources from large scale management
activity, and requested additional
information on the ongoing beetle
epidemic, especially its impact on
meeting project goals.
ERP No. D–AFS–J65431–UT Rating
EC2, Duck Creek Fuels Treatment
Analysis, To Reduce Fuels, Enhance
Fire-Tolerant Vegetation and Provide
Fuel Breaks, Dixie National Forest,
Cedar City Ranger District, Kane
County, UT.
Summary: EPA expressed
environmental concerns about the
potential for adverse impacts to water
quality and aquatic habitat, degradation
of soils and impacts to wildlife from
reduction of old growth habitat. The
Final EIS should discuss additional
mitigation measures to reduce impacts
in important wildlife habitat and backcountry areas.
ERP No. D–AFS–J65434–CO Rating
EC2, County Line Vegetation
Management Project, Salvaging Spruce
Beetle Infected Trees and Thinning
Spruce-Fir Stand, Rio Grande National
Forest, Conejos Peak Ranger District,
Conejes County, CO.
Summary: EPA expressed
environmental concerns about soil
disturbance and erosion, runoff,
sedimentation, and habitat impacts in
streams that have a population of
genetically pure Rio Grande cutthroat
trout, and wildlife impacts to sensitive
species such as threatened Canada
Lynx, Northern Goshawk, and Boreal
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:41 Feb 17, 2005
Jkt 205001
Owl. EPA recommended that the
Preferred Alternative be modified to
protect critical, older-growth spruce-fir
wildlife habitats.
ERP No. D–AFS–K65277–CA Rating
EC2, Modoc National Forest Noxious
Weed Treatment Project, Proposes to
Implement a Control and Eradication
Project, Lassen, Modoc and Siskiyou
Counties, CA.
Summary: EPA expressed
environmental concerns about
integration of weed treatments, impacts
to water quality, toxicity of herbicides to
wildlife, and addressing tribal concerns
regarding herbicide use.
ERP No. D–USA–L11037–AK Rating
EC2, Battle Area Complex (BAX) and a
Combined Arms Collective Training
Facility (CACTF) Construction and
Operation, U.S. Army Training Lands in
Alaska.
Summary: EPA expressed concerns
related to water resource, wetland, and
habitat impacts, and recommended that
additional criteria could be used to
expand the range of alternatives in order
to minimize environmental impacts.
ERP No. DR–IBR–K39048–CA Rating
EC2, Truckee River Operating
Agreement (TROA) Modify Operations
of Five Federal and Two Non-Federal
Reservoirs to Facilitate Distribution of
Water, Truckee River Basin, EL Dorado,
Nevada, Placer and Sierra Counties, CA
and Douglas, Lyon, Storey and Washoe
Counties, NV.
Summary: EPA expressed concerns
about potential impacts to water quality
and sensitive resources, and requested
additional information in the Final EIS
on water quality, alternatives, biological
resources, cumulative impacts, water
conservation, and program monitoring
and reporting measures.
Final EISs
ERP No. F–AFS–J65399–00 High
Mountains Heli-Skiing (HMH) Project,
Issuance of a New 5–Year Special Use
Permit (SUP) to Continue Operating
Guided Helicopter Skiing in Portions of
the Bridger-Teton National Forest and
Caribou-Targhee National Forest
(CTNF), Teton and Lincoln Counties,
WY and Teton and Bonneville Counties,
ID.
Summary: EPA expressed no
objections to the proposed action.
ERP No. F–BIA–C60004–NY St. Regis
Mohawk Tribe, Mohawk Mountain
Casino and Resort, Proposed Transfer of
66 Acres of Land into Federal Trust
Status, Fee-to-Trust Acquisition,
Sullivan County, NY.
Summary: EPA continues to express
concern about the project’s cumulative
effects and air quality analyses.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
ERP No. F–FHW–G40174–TX Eastern
Extension of the President George Bush
Turnpike (PGBT) from TX–78 to I–30,
New Controlled Access Tollway
Construction at a New Location, Cities
of Garland, Sachse, Rowlett and Dallas,
Dallas County, TX.
Summary: No comment letter was
sent to the preparing agency.
ERP No. FA–AFS–L67028–AK
Kensington Gold Project, Proposed
Modifications of the 1998 Approved
Plan Operation, NPDES, ESA and US
COE Section 10 and 404 Permits,
Tongass National Forest, City of Juneau,
AK.
Summary: This EIS has addressed
EPA’s objections about toxicity in the
lake and the NPDES discharge. EPA is
continuing to work through the
404(b)(1) process.
ERP No. F1–AFS–J65308–UT Wasatch
Powerbird Guides Permit Renewal,
Authorization to Continue Providing
Guided Helicopter Skiing Activities on
National Forest System (NFS) Land on
the Wasatch-Cache and Uinta National
Forests, Special-Use Permit (SUP),
Provo and Salt Lake City, UT.
Summary: EPA expressed no
objections to the proposed action.
ERP No. F1–FHW–F40361–MI MI–59
Livingston County Widening Project
between I–96 and US 23, Recommended
Alternative was Selected, Right-of-Way
Preservation Center Corridor, Funding,
NPDES and U.S. Army COE Section 404
Permits Issuance, Livingston County,
MI.
Summary: EPA has environmental
concerns about the project regarding
invasive species control, and also
requests additional information in the
Record of Decision concerning wetlands
impacts and secondary land use
changes.
Dated: February 15, 2005.
Robert W. Hargrove,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office
of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 05–3188 Filed 2–17–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL–7874–4]
Targeted Watersheds Grant Program:
Call for Nominations
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: EPA today is announcing the
Call for Nominations of watershed
proposals under the Targeted
E:\FR\FM\18FEN1.SGM
18FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 33 / Friday, February 18, 2005 / Notices
Watersheds Grant Program. Formerly
called the Watershed Initiative, the
Targeted Watersheds Grant Program is a
competitive grant program designed to
support the protection and restoration of
the country’s water resources through a
holistic watershed approach to water
quality management. For fiscal year
2005, Congress has appropriated a total
of $18 million for the Program of which
$10 million will be directed to nationwide projects for improving water
quality and the remaining $8 million
will be directed toward projects in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed. Today’s
notice sets forth the process that will be
used for selecting watersheds for the
nation-wide projects, and serves as the
call for nominations from Governors
and Tribal Leaders. Subsequently, EPA
will publish a separate notice that will
outline the criteria and selection process
for Chesapeake Bay nominations.
DATES: The deadline for EPA receipt of
nominations, both in hard copy and in
electronic form, is May 19, 2005.
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 one copy to
Carol Peterson, Office of Wetlands,
Oceans, and Watersheds, USEPA, Room
7136E, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20004; telephone 202–
566–1304. The other copy is to be
delivered to the appropriate EPA
Regional office (see section IV.E for
regional names and addresses). Please
mark all submissions ATTN: Targeted
Watersheds.
In addition to the hard copies, a
portion of the nomination package must
also be submitted electronically to the email address provided; the subject line
should read ‘‘STATE—WATERSHED
NAME.’’ Please follow the detailed
instructions provided in section IV.D 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
VII of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section below. Additional information,
forms, and any updated guidance will
be posted on EPA’s Targeted
Watersheds Web site at https://
www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/
initiative.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:41 Feb 17, 2005
Jkt 205001
I. Funding Opportunity Description
A. The Targeted Watersheds Grant
Program
The Targeted Watersheds Grant
Program is built on the fundamental
concept of managing water resource use
and water quality on a holistic
watershed basis. The watershed
approach focuses regional and State
efforts to integrate water and source
water protection programs to support
locally-led collaborative efforts within
hydrologically defined boundaries that
protect and restore our aquatic resources
and ecosystems. This approach offers an
efficient opportunity to tackle today’s
environmental challenges. The Targeted
Watersheds Grant Program encourages
watershed practitioners to examine
water-related problems in the context of
the larger watershed in which they
exist, to develop solutions to those
problems by creatively applying the full
array of available tools, including
Federal, State, and local programs, and
to restore and preserve water resources
through strategic planning and
implementation that draw in public and
private sector partners. Both the
watershed approach and the Targeted
Watersheds Grant Program focus on
multi-faceted plans for protecting and
restoring water resources that are
developed using partnership efforts of
diverse stakeholders. Projects selected
for funding will go beyond
implementing separate, detached
activities and will focus on
implementing and measuring the
effectiveness of an integrated watershedbased approach to conservation and
restoration throughout a watershed.
Successful nominees will focus on farreaching approaches that will improve
water quality and are consistent with
the goals of the Clean Water Act.
B. Goals for 2005
In this third year of the program, EPA
will continue to support coalition-based
strategies for improving water resources
on a watershed level, including
activities such as attaining water quality
standards, and protecting and restoring
the natural and beneficial uses of
floodplains. The goal of the Targeted
Watersheds Grant Program is to advance
successful partnerships and coalitions
that have completed the necessary
watershed assessments and have a
technically sound watershed plan ready
to carry out. This Program is intended
to encourage the kind of pro-active, and
incentive-based protection and
restoration measures that will yield
cleaner water and better protected
ecosystems.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
8365
EPA will select projects that are
intended to improve water quality and
are based on the fundamentals of the
Clean Water Act, that is, projects that
relate to the prevention, reduction, and
elimination of water pollution. The
Agency will continue to base its
selections on projects that exhibit a high
degree of innovation, measurable
results, partnerships, outreach and costeffectiveness. In addition, special
emphasis this year will be placed on
water quality trading projects. To
encourage States, interstate agencies,
and tribes to develop and implement
water quality trading programs for
nutrients, sediments, and other
pollutants, EPA will reserve about
fifteen percent of the Targeted
Watersheds grant funds for promising
trading projects that meet the prescribed
criteria. While trading projects may take
longer to develop and implement due to
necessary front-end tasks such as
establishing a market framework and
identifying applicable trading ratios,
EPA is interested in funding trading
projects that will result in reduced
pollutant loadings in the near to midterm. Thus, more specific criteria
related to trading is provided in this
year’s solicitation (see section V.A).
Examples of trading proposals with
these characteristics can be found on the
Targeted Watersheds Grant Program
Web site at https://www.epa.gov/owow/
watershed/initiative/2004/
04proposals.html under Passiac River,
NJ and Cape Fear River, NC. EPA’s
Water Quality Trading Policy and other
relevant information can be found at
https://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/
trading/.
II. Award Information
Approximately $10 million will be
available to support nation-wide
projects of which fifteen percent will be
reserved for trading projects. Funding
also will be continued to existing grants
that work toward providing services,
such as, national tools, training, and
technical assistance to all watershed
organizations.
EPA anticipates that typical grant
awards for the selected watersheds will
range from $600,000 to $900,000
depending on the amount requested and
the overall size and need of the project.
It is important to note that, even if
selected to receive a grant, full funding
of a proposal is not guaranteed, and EPA
reserves the right to make partial
awards. For example, the Agency may
choose not to fund one particular aspect
of the proposal or may choose to
decrease a requested award by a certain
percentage. EPA also reserves the right
E:\FR\FM\18FEN1.SGM
18FEN1
8366
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 33 / Friday, February 18, 2005 / Notices
to reject all proposals and make no
awards.
III. Eligibility Information
A. Authority
For FY 2005, EPA has been granted
independent authority for the Targeted
Watersheds Grant Program. This
authority is contained in the
Consolidated Appropriations (Omnibus
Bill), Public Law 108–447. The new
authority allows EPA to tailor the scope
of the Targeted Watersheds Grant
Program to better align with the goals of
the Clean Water Act of fishable,
swimmable waters, and the objectives of
the Agency’s strategic plan to protect
the environment and safeguard human
health. This clears the way for EPA to
fund a broader range of projects and
allows the Agency to fund projects that
directly entail environmental protection
and/or restoration activities, most
specifically, on-the-ground
implementation projects.
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 https://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 Applicants
Any governmental or nonprofit nongovernmental entity is eligible to receive
a grant under the Targeted Watersheds
Grant Program. Recipients can include:
States and tribes, public water pollution
control agencies; interstate or intertribal agencies; public or non-profit
private agencies, institutions, or
organizations; and individuals. All nonprofit watershed organizations are
eligible and are encouraged to submit a
nomination. Watershed organizations
that were selected for funding in 2003
or 2004 are not eligible. For-profit
commercial entities are ineligible for
funding but are strongly encouraged to
be active partners. The term ‘‘State’’ is
defined to include the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin
Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:41 Feb 17, 2005
Jkt 205001
the Northern Mariana Islands (40 CFR
31.3).
Interjurisdictional watershed
partnerships, that is, those that
encompass abutting areas and, thus,
neighboring political authorities, or that
transcend international boundaries, are
encouraged. Watershed nominations
that encompass more than one
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).
C. Eligible Activities
EPA will consider any activity, apart
from those listed below, that will result
in the protection, preservation, and
restoration of a watershed, that
incorporates a watershed-based
approach, and meets the prescribed
criteria, e.g, is well developed and will
produce measurable environmental
outcomes. Activities proposed for
funding are not necessarily expected to
address the entire watershed, but are
expected to have been developed based
on a comprehensive assessment and
plan for the watershed. As such, all
activities must directly support the
described watershed plan, and Targeted
Watersheds Grant funds must be used in
accordance with the plan. Examples of
selected proposals and funded activities
from 2003 and 2004 can be found on the
Web site at https://www.epa.gov/owow/
watershed/initiative/2003/ and https://
www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/
initiative/2004/, respectively.
EPA has chosen to declare certain
activities ineligible for funding. These
include any proposals to directly
support activities required under the
Clean Water Act. This entails funds for
the development of Total Maximum
Daily Loads (TMDLs), and Office of
Water regulatory programs including
Phase II Stormwater projects. Proposals
implementing the non-regulatory
component of TMDLs, e.g. the elements
of a watershed plan that address nonpoint pollution, however, are eligible.
The construction of buildings or other
major structures, or the purchase of
major equipment or machinery, also
will not be funded under this Program.
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.
D. Cost Sharing/Matching Requirements
EPA is requiring applicants to
demonstrate a minimum non-Federal
match of 25% of the total cost of the
project or projects. This means EPA will
fund a maximum of 75% of the total
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
project cost. 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
regulations governing matching fund
requirements (40 CFR 31.24 or 40 CFR
30.23). Federal funds may not be used
to meet the match requirement for this
grant program unless authorized by the
statute governing their use.
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. 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 VII, forty-five
(45) days prior to the nomination
deadline. If approved, the nomination
will be scored as if it meets the
minimum 25% match.
IV. Application and Submission
Information
EPA will select watersheds and will
award the grants through a national
competition. Nominations will be
selected based on the quality of the
written materials received and
adherence to the selection criteria and
goals of the Targeted Watersheds Grant
Program. Emphasis will be placed on
those proposed projects with clear
objectives, measurable environmental
indicators, and an executable
monitoring plan. Funding decisions will
be made based on the evaluation criteria
outlined in section V.A of this notice.
EPA will invite only those nominees
whose proposals are selected under this
Program to submit formal grant
applications (section VI).
A. Nomination Process
Watersheds must be nominated by
Governors or Tribal Leaders. (For the
purposes of this notice, a tribal
nomination may be submitted by an
elected 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.
A Governor or Tribal Leader may
nominate up to two watersheds, each of
which is wholly within its boundaries,
plus an unlimited number of
interjurisdictional watersheds, i.e.,
those that encompass several States,
Tribes or countries. For
E:\FR\FM\18FEN1.SGM
18FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 33 / Friday, February 18, 2005 / Notices
interjurisdictional watersheds, any of
the engaged Governors/Tribal Leaders
may submit the nomination. Such
watershed nominations must include an
official endorsement of all partnering
States or Tribes in their nomination
package. Governors and Tribal Leaders
are to submit their watershed
nominations to EPA.
B. Content and Form of Nomination
Package
In preparing nomination materials,
nominees should focus on the
overarching goal by which their overall
nomination will be judged, i.e, how the
proposed projects are interrelated to
benefit the whole watershed. Within the
required components outlined below,
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 V.A
below.
Each nomination package must
contain the components listed in this
section. Failure to submit any of this
information ultimately will result in
disqualification and removal from the
selection process. Conversely,
additional, unsolicited material is
strongly discouraged and any such
material submitted will not be reviewed.
1. Nomination Letter. A letter signed
by the Governor or Tribal Leader
formally nominating the watershed for
consideration for funding must
accompany each nomination package.
2. Title Page. The title page must
indicate: (1) The name of the watershed
along with the designated 8-digit
Hydrological Unit Code(s) (HUCs); (2) if
applicable, the impaired waters, such as
any degraded stream segments within
the project area that are on the State’s
303(d) list; (3) nominee contact
information, i.e., name, affiliation,
address, telephone, and e-mail of the
person with whom the Agency should
correspond; and (4) Internet Web site
(i.e., URL) of the organization if
available. HUCs (also known as USGS
Cataloging Units) and State 303(d)
listings can be found on EPA’s Surf
Your Watershed Web site at https://
www.epa.gov/surf/locate/index.cfm.
3. Abstract. A 150-word or less
summary of the nomination.
4. Project Description. The narrative
description of the proposed activities is
limited to a total of ten, double-spaced
pages in which the following
components are addressed. The page
numbers shown in parentheses for each
component listed below are suggested
lengths only, and nominees may adjust
their project description within the 10page limit in a manner that best fits
their needs.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:41 Feb 17, 2005
Jkt 205001
(a) Introduction (2 pages).
Characterize the watershed, including
any wetlands, 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,
socio-economic and/or cultural
characteristics.
(2) An identification and
prioritization 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
Projects (7 pages).
Describe the projects to be funded
under the Targeted Watersheds Grant
Program. These should be described in
terms of activities that will meet the
stated objectives and yield positive
environmental outcomes. The following
information must be included:
(1) Describe how the project(s) will
improve the identified impairments or
stream conditions. Explain how the
projects fit together and are interrelated
to benefit and affect watershed health.
(2) Describe in detail 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
and dates for determining whether or
not the intended goals of the watershed
project(s) are being realized.
(3) Describe the monitoring and
evaluation component along with
identified environmental indicators.
Attention should be given to additional
pre-project baseline data requirements.
This component must 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., on-the-ground
work performed). The progress and
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
8367
performance of the projects must be
measurable by technically sound
practices.
(4) Include a description of expected
environmental outcomes. Describe the
method to measure the environmental
improvement that is expected to result
from the project(s) and describe how the
project(s) will be evaluated. Criteria by
which the project(s) will be judged and
by which the project will be considered
successful should be incorporated into
the description.
(5) Describe 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 Outreach Activities
(1 page).
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, describe
the outreach plan and how it will
transfer the knowledge gained from this
effort to other areas and organizations.
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 Targeted Watersheds Web site at
https://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/
initiative/budget.form. All budget
information, including grant
administration costs, 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 subsections
(b) and (c) below). Nominees should
include cost estimates for each of the
proposed project activities to be
conducted under the grant. Due to the
increase in grant management
requirements, EPA suggests that
nominees budget up to 15% of the total
project costs for administrative
purposes.
Explanations of the costs associated
with each entry should be included in
the narrative portion of the nomination
package.
E:\FR\FM\18FEN1.SGM
18FEN1
8368
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 33 / Friday, February 18, 2005 / Notices
TABLE 1.—BUDGET INFORMATION—EPA TARGETED WATERSHEDS GRANT PROGRAM 1
Watershed Project, Activity or Work Plan Element
Federal
Non-Federal
Total
SECTION A—BUDGET SUMMARY
1.
2.
3.
4.
$
Totals .........................................................................................................................................
from Standard Form 424A, OMB Circular A–102.
$
$
$
$
$
1 Excerpted
Watershed Project, Activity or Work Plan Element
Total
Budget Categories
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
SECTION B—BUDGET CATEGORIES
a. Personnel
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) ..............................................................
(b) Matching Requirement. Applicants
must demonstrate a minimum nonFederal match of 25% of the total cost
of the project or projects. This means
EPA will fund a maximum of 75% of
the total project cost. To determine if
the minimum match is met, the
following formulas may be helpful:
amount ($) requested from EPA × 100 ≤
75 or
cost ($) of entire project
amount ($) requested from EPA =
minimum match ($)
3
For example, a $1.2M grant could be
used to support a $1.6M project
proposal. Another way of looking at this
is if the nominee requests $1M, it must
be able to provide $333,334.00 in
matching funds or services. In this
example, the total cost of the proposal
would be just under $1.34M. Please
contact your Regional contact person
listed in section VII if you have any
questions about calculating the match
requirement.
(c) Annual Conference. Watershed
organizations selected for grant funding
will be required to attend the annual
three-day National Targeted Watersheds
Conference during each year of the
grant. The purpose of this conference is
to provide these watershed
organizations with training and support
to better restore, protect, and manage
their watersheds, provide help and
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:41 Feb 17, 2005
Jkt 205001
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
assistance in Agency grants
management requirements and, most
importantly, 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 hosting 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 three-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
and recipients may need to purchase
appropriate ORACLE software. 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. An introduction to the
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
STORET system will be provided at the
annual conference, as well as
information regarding training sessions
sponsored by EPA. 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 https://www.epa.gov/STORET.
6. Appendices.
(a) Experience in Grant Management
(1 page maximum).
To ensure that nominees possess the
management and technical skills
required to administer the grant, a
description of management experience
is needed. In a 1-page appendix to the
project description, provide information
on the past experience of the project
leader(s) and/or partners in designing,
implementing, coordinating activities,
and effectively managing a Federal
grant. 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.
(b) Letter(s) of Support.
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 description and submitted
E:\FR\FM\18FEN1.SGM
18FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 33 / Friday, February 18, 2005 / Notices
as appendices include the following
items.
(i) Signed letter(s) from active
partners indicating their commitment to
implementing the workplan or for
specific proposed projects.
(ii) A minimum of one signed letter
from an entity committing to provide
matching funds, either in cash or inkind goods and services, including the
total value of its commitment toward
the projects.
(iii) 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 position in Canada
or Mexico is acceptable.
(c) Map. A map of the watershed and
the proposal work areas is required.
C. Format
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) a 150-word or less
abstract, (4) project description, (5) the
budget form, (6) a one-page description
of grant management experience, (7)
letter(s) and certification(s) of support,
and (8) maps. The project 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 IV.B. To ensure a fair and
equitable evaluation of the nominations,
please do not exceed the above limits.
A nomination that contains a project
description narrative that exceeds ten
double-spaced pages will not be
considered. The title page, abstract, and
required appendices will not count
toward the 10-page limit. The entire
nomination package should be printed
on 81⁄2″x11″ paper.
D. Submission Process
EPA invites each Governor and Tribal
Leader to submit nominations for grants
under the 2005 Targeted Watershed
Grants Program.
Nominations must be received by EPA
by May 19, 2005.
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,
project 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 should be in
the format ‘‘STATE—Watershed Name’’
(e.g., MD—Rock Creek). No confidential
business information should be sent via
e-mail. If unusual or extraordinary
circumstances prevent electronic
submission of the nomination, please
contact the appropriate Regional contact
person to discuss alternate
arrangements.
2. Paper. Two hard copies of the
complete nomination package
(including all nominating and support
letters) are required to be sent by
express mail or courier service. One
package is to be sent to EPA
Headquarters and the other is to go to
the appropriate Regional Office. All
names and addresses are listed below.
Mark all submissions: ATTN: Targeted
Watersheds.
E. Submission Addresses
Submissions must be delivered to the
following:
Headquarters:
Carol Peterson, Office of Wetlands,
Oceans, and Watersheds; U.S. EPA; Rm.
7136; 1301 Constitution Avenue; NW.,
Washington, DC 20004.
EPA Regional Offices:
Region I—Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
Vermont, New Hampshire
Marilyn Smith-Church; U.S. EPA
Region 1; 1 Congress Street, Suite
1100; Mail Code CWN; Boston, MA
02114–2023.
Region II—New Jersey, New York,
Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands
Cyndy Kopitsky, U.S. EPA Region 2;
290 Broadway; 24th Floor; New
York, NY 10007–1866;
8369
Region III—Delaware, Maryland,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, West
Virginia, Washington, DC
Ralph Spagnolo; U.S. EPA Region 3;
Mail Code 3WP12; 1650 Arch
Street; Philadelphia, PA 19103–
2029.
Region IV—Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee
William L. Cox; U.S. EPA Region 4;
Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center;
15th Floor; 61 Forsyth Street, SW.;
Atlanta, GA 30303–3104.
Region V—Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin
Paul Thomas; U.S. EPA Region 5;
Mail Code WW–16J; 77 W. Jackson
Blvd; Chicago, IL 60604.
Region VI—Louisiana, Texas,
Oklahoma, Arkansas, New Mexico
Brad Lamb; U.S. EPA Region 6; Mail
Code 6WQ–EW; 1445 Ross Avenue;
Dallas, TX 75202.
Region VII—Iowa, Kansas, Missouri,
Nebraska
Margaret Stockdale; U.S. EPA Region
7; Mail Code WWPD/GPCB; 901
North 5th Street; Kansas City, KS
66101.
Region VIII—Colorado, Montana, North
Dakota, South Dakota, Utah,
Wyoming
Peter Ismert; U.S. EPA Region 8; Mail
Code 8EPR–EP; 999 18th Street,
Suite 300; Denver, CO 80202–2466.
Region IX—Arizona, California, Hawaii,
Nevada, American Samoa, Mariana
Islands, Guam
Sam Ziegler; U.S. EPA Region 9; Mail
Code WTR–3; 75 Hawthorne Street;
San Francisco, CA 94105.
Region X—Alaska, Idaho, Oregon,
Washington
Bevin Reid; U.S. EPA Region 10; Mail
Code OWW–137; 1200 Sixth
Avenue; Seattle, WA 98101
F. Checklist
To assist nominees in collecting and
formatting their package materials, the
following checklist is provided (Table
2). These factors will be used by the
Agency in screening the nominations for
eligibility. The absence of any of these
factors could result in disqualification
from the onset without notice.
TABLE 2.—CHECKLIST OF REQUIRED ELEMENTS
1. Package Components:
Nominating letter signed by the Governor or Tribal Leader or Tribal Official ......................................................................................
Title page ..............................................................................................................................................................................................
150-word Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................................
10-page Project Description .................................................................................................................................................................
Budget form ..........................................................................................................................................................................................
1-page description of Grant Management Experience ........................................................................................................................
Letter(s) signed by active partners .......................................................................................................................................................
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:41 Feb 17, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\18FEN1.SGM
18FEN1
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
8370
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 33 / Friday, February 18, 2005 / Notices
TABLE 2.—CHECKLIST OF REQUIRED ELEMENTS—Continued
Letter(s) committing matching funds ....................................................................................................................................................
Letters(s) supporting inter-jurisdictional nominations (if applicable) ....................................................................................................
Map(s) ...................................................................................................................................................................................................
2. Project Description Format:
12-point font size ..................................................................................................................................................................................
Double-spaced ......................................................................................................................................................................................
1″ Margins ............................................................................................................................................................................................
81⁄2 x 11″ paper ....................................................................................................................................................................................
3. Match Requirement:
25% Minimum match ............................................................................................................................................................................
Match includes Federal funds and applicant has cited authority .........................................................................................................
Waiver of match requested due to undue hardship (Tribal only) ........................................................................................................
4. Submission:
1 hard copy of all materials sent to EPA Headquarters ......................................................................................................................
1 hard copy of all materials sent to appropriate EPA Regional Office ................................................................................................
Electronic copy of narrative text only sent to initiative.watershed@epa.gov (subject line: STATE-Watershed Name) ......................
V. Application Review Information
A. Evaluation Criteria
Watershed nominations will be
reviewed, evaluated, and scored based
on the following criteria with a possible
total score of 60 points.
1. Innovation (10 points). Emphasis
will be placed on progressive and
forward-thinking projects and
watershed nominations that undertake
unique, innovative, or novel approaches
to environmental problem-solving. The
Agency recognizes that there can be
innovative approaches that do not
involve trading. However, for proposals
that incorporate trading approaches to
water quality, EPA will view more
favorably projects that have the
following characteristics: a TMDL or
other ‘‘cap’’ for the pollutant is either in
place or is imminent; a pollutant that
comes from numerous (point and
nonpoint) sources within the watershed
and several sources have a pollutant
control obligation; and some sources
that are likely to have significantly
different control costs to achieve the
desired pollutant reductions.
2. Tangible Solutions (total of 30
points). Nominees will be evaluated
based on the extent they demonstrate an
in-depth knowledge of the watershed
ecology, present a sound approach for
combating threats and impairments, and
include a description of how
environmental results can be achieved
and measured. Under this criteria,
reviewers will focus on the following
components:
(a) Feasibility (10 points). Reviewers
will look at how well developed the
project is, i.e., the readiness of the
project, technical merit, and expected
environmental improvements. The focus
will be on nominations that describe
projects that are part of larger watershed
assessments and plans, and reflect a
watershed-based approach to
conservation and restoration. The
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:41 Feb 17, 2005
Jkt 205001
evaluation will focus on the overall
soundness of the nomination from both
an ecological and design perspective
with an emphasis on those projects that
can be implemented quickly. In
summary, the evaluation will focus on
whether nominees 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) Environmental Measures (15
points). Under this criterion, a
nomination will be evaluated based on
how well it is supported by a clearly
articulated set of performance and
progress measures, and identified and
measurable environmental indicators. A
more detailed monitoring and data
collection strategy is preferred.
Reviewers will evaluate the proposal in
relation to its likelihood to achieve
predicted measurable, defensible
environmental results in a relatively
short time period, including potentially
attaining expected outcomes, reaching
project goals, and producing on-theground, quantifiable environmental
change using sound science.
(c) Integration (5 points). Reviewers
will evaluate the extent to which the
proposed project plan provides an
approach that integrates various tools
including, but not limited to, those
provided by local, State, Tribal and
Federal programs, to solve the
environmental problems. Emphasis will
be placed on how well the proposal
demonstrates a thoughtful and a
strategic approach to problem-solving.
3. Broad Support (total of 10 points).
Acknowledging and responding to
representative interests from a broad
and varied perspective is crucial to any
successful watershed enterprise. This
criteria will be based on the nominees
ability to demonstrate and substantiate
a strong collaborative effort.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
(a) Partnerships (5 points). The
reviewers will examine whether the
watershed nomination incorporates a
wide variety of public, private, and nonprofit participation. The evaluation 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, Tribal, and
local entities, along with evidence of
broad-based community involvement.
(b) Interjurisdictionality (5 points).
Reviewers will evaluate whether the
nomination actively involves more than
one governmental entity, be it
municipal, county, State, Tribal, 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 evaluated on the design and breadth
of their outreach program with an
emphasis on 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. Reviewers
will also assess how the proposal
addresses training and educational
approaches to disseminating
information about successful
approaches and results.
5. Financial Integrity (5 points). The
evaluation will examine the adequacy of
the budget information provided, and
whether the budget is reasonable and
clearly presented. Reviewers will also
consider the extent that the proposal
exceeds the minimum match
requirement or can certify a broad range
of leveraging capacity.
E:\FR\FM\18FEN1.SGM
18FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 33 / Friday, February 18, 2005 / Notices
B. Review and Selection Process
Governors and Tribal Leaders are to
submit their watershed nominations to
EPA. Once received by EPA, the
nominations will undergo four phases of
review. In phase one, all nominations
will be pre-reviewed, or screened, by
EPA Regional staff to determine if they
are eligible, complete, and prepared in
accordance with the instructions
provided in this notice. If any of the
required elements of the nomination
package are inadvertently omitted, EPA
may choose to contact the nominee. In
phase two, each of the Agency’s
Regional Offices will convene a Review
and Evaluation Panel to initially assess
how well the nominations meet the
evaluation criteria described above.
Based on the panel review and
recommendations, each Regional
Administrator will then forward the
Region’s top three candidates to EPA
Headquarters Office of Water in
Washington, DC.
Phases three and four of the review
process will occur at the national level.
Upon receipt of the Regional
recommendations, the Office of Water
will convene a Technical Advisory
Panel consisting of representatives from
the Agency’s Program and Regional
Offices to review and rank the
watershed nominations. In addition to
the evaluation criteria listed above,
factors such as geographic diversity,
project diversity, watershed size, urban/
rural mix, and cost will be considered
in ranking nominations. During phase
four, the National Panel will present its
findings and recommendations to the
Assistant Administrator of Water for
approval and transmittal to the
Administrator. The Administrator will
make the final decision on the
watersheds to be funded. Finalists will
be contacted by telephone. All
nominees, including those who are not
selected for funding, will be notified by
mail.
EPA expects to announce the selected
watershed nominations in the summer
of 2005. Selected watershed grantees
will complete the grant award process,
including final grant workplan
negotiations through the appropriate
EPA Regional Office in the fall of 2005.
In general, grants awarded will be onetime awards and grant recipients should
use the funds within 2–3 years (slightly
longer for trading projects). Any
subsequent Targeted Watersheds Grant
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
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:41 Feb 17, 2005
Jkt 205001
competitive process and will not receive
preferential consideration based on the
applicant’s previous award.
VI. Post-Selection Award
Administration Information
A. Applying for a Grant
EPA will invite only nominees whose
proposals are selected to submit grant
applications. Once notified that their
proposal has been selected for funding,
the nominee 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 https://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.
A new policy directive from the
Office of Management and Budget
effective October 1, 2004 requires grant
applicants to provide a number from the
Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) Data
Universal Numbering System (DUNS)
when applying for Federal assistance
agreements. Organizations can receive a
DUNS number at no cost by calling the
toll free DUNS number request line at
1–866–705–5711. Additional
information on obtaining a DUNS
number can also be found at: https://
www.dnb.com.
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 will be
notified if dispute provisions change.
Applicants should clearly 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,
Targeted Watershed 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 Officer will be
determined in the pre-award
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
8371
negotiations between the selected
nominee and EPA. The designated EPA
Regional Contact listed in section VII
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. Grant applicants
will receive a notice of award through
postal mail. The notice of award signed
by the Award Official (or equivalent) in
the Grants Administration Division is
the authorizing document, and will be
mailed to the individual signing the
original application.
B. Administrative and National Policy
Requirements
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 https://
www.epa.gov/quality/
qa_docs.html#noeparqt.
C. Reporting
Project monitoring and reporting
requirements can be found in 40 CFR
30.50–30.52, 40 CFR 31.40–31.41 and 40
CFR 40.160.1–40.160.5. 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 format of
these reports will be identified during
the grant application time frame, and
will include reporting on established
performance measures indicated in the
project description (i.e., environmental,
infrastructure, and implementation
measures). The final report is due 90
days after the grant has expired. Grant
managers should consult, and work
E:\FR\FM\18FEN1.SGM
18FEN1
8372
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 33 / Friday, February 18, 2005 / Notices
closely with, their Regional contact
person throughout the award period.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
VII. Agency Contacts
[FRL–7874–5]
Headquarters:
Carol Peterson, telephone 202–566–
1034; e-mail
initiative.watershed@epa.gov.
EPA Regional Offices:
Region I—Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
Vermont, New Hampshire
Marilyn Smith-Church or Jerry
Potamis, telephones 617–918–1133
and 617–918–1651; e-mails smithchurch.marilyn@epa.gov and
potamis.gerald@epa.gov,
respectively.
Region II—New Jersey, New York,
Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands
Cyndy Kopitsky; telephone 212–637–
3832; e-mail
kopitsky.cyndy@epa.gov.
Region III—Delaware, Maryland,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, West
Virginia, Washington, DC
Ralph Spagnolo, telephone 215–814–
2718; e-mail
spagnolo.ralph@epa.gov.
Region IV—Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee
William L. Cox, telephone 404–562–
9351; e-mail cox.williaml@epa.gov.
Region V—Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin
Paul Thomas, telephone 312–886–
7742; e-mail thomas.paul@epa.gov.
Region VI—Louisiana, Texas,
Oklahoma, Arkansas, New Mexico
Brad Lamb, telephone 214–665–6683;
e-mail lamb.brad@epa.gov.
Region VII—Iowa, Kansas, Missouri,
Nebraska
Margaret Stockdale, telephone 913–
551–7936; e-mail
stockdale.margaret@epa.gov.
Region VIII—Colorado, Montana, North
Dakota, South Dakota, Utah,
Wyoming
Peter Ismert; telephone 303–312–
6215; e-mail ismert.peter@epa.gov.
Region IX—Arizona, California, Hawaii,
Nevada, American Samoa, Mariana
Islands, Guam
Sam Ziegler, telephone 415–972–
3399; e-mail ziegler.sam@epa.gov.
Region X—Alaska, Idaho, Oregon,
Washington
Bevin Reid, telephone 206–553–1566;
e-mail Reid.BevinG@epa.gov.
Sadler Drum Superfund Site; Notice of
Proposed Settlement
Dated: February 14, 2005.
Benjamin H. Grumbles,
Assistant Administrator for Water.
[FR Doc. 05–3184 Filed 2–17–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:41 Feb 17, 2005
Jkt 205001
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement;
request for public comment.
SUMMARY: The United States
Environmental Protection Agency is
proposing to enter into a settlement for
the partial reimbursement of past
response costs, pursuant to section
122(h)(1) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, as
amended (‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C.
9622(h)(1), concerning the Sadler Drum
Superfund Site in Mulberry, Polk
County, Florida, with Settling Party,
Leroy Helms, an individual. The Agency
will consider public comments on the
proposed settlement until March 21,
2005. The Agency will consider all
comments received and may modify or
withdraw its consent to the settlement
if comments received disclose facts or
considerations which indicate that the
settlement is inappropriate, improper,
or inadequate. Copies of the proposed
settlement are available from: Paula V.
Batchelor, WMD–SEIMB, U.S. EPA,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, GA 30303, (404) 562–8887.
Written comments may be submitted
to Ms. Batchelor within 30 calendar
days of the date of this publication.
Dated: February 7, 2005.
Rosalind H. Brown,
Chief, Superfund Enforcement & Information
Management Branch, Waste Management
Division.
[FR Doc. 05–3182 Filed 2–17–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Announcement of Board
Approval Under Delegated Authority
and Submission to OMB
AGENCY: Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System
ACTION: Notice
SUMMARY: Background. Notice is hereby
given of the final approval of proposed
information collection(s) by the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve
System (Board) under OMB delegated
authority, as per 5 CFR 1320.16 (OMB
Regulations on Controlling Paperwork
Burdens on the Public). Board–
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
approved collections of information are
incorporated into the official OMB
inventory of currently approved
collections of information. Copies of the
OMB 83–Is and supporting statements
and approved collection of information
instrument(s) are placed into OMB’s
public docket files. The Federal Reserve
may not conduct or sponsor, and the
respondent is not required to respond
to, an information collection that has
been extended, revised, or implemented
on or after October 1, 1995, unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer
– Michelle Long –Division of Research
and Statistics, Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, Washington,
DC 20551 (202–452–3829).
OMB Desk Officer – Mark Menchik ––
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, New Executive Office Building,
Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or
email to mmenchik@omb.eop.gov
Final approval under OMB delegated
authority of the extension for three
years, without revision of the following
report:
Report titles: Registration Statement
for Persons Who Extend Credit Secured
by Margin Stock (Other Than Banks,
Brokers, or Dealers); Deregistration
Statement for Persons Registered
Pursuant to Regulation U; Statement of
Purpose for an Extension of Credit
Secured by Margin Stock by a Person
Subject to Registration Under
Regulation U; Annual Report; Statement
of Purpose for an Extension of Credit by
a Creditor; and Statement of Purpose for
an Extension of Credit Secured by
Margin Stock.
Agency form numbers: FR G–1, FR G–
2, FR G–3, FR G–4, FR T–4, FR U–1
OMB control numbers: 7100–0011: FR
G–1, FR G–2, FR G–4; 7100–0018: FR G–
3; 7100–0019: FR T–4; and 7100–0115:
FR U–1
Frequency: FR G–1, FR G–2, FR G–3,
FR T–4, and FR U–1: on occasion FR G–
4: annual
Reporters: Individuals and business
Annual reporting hours: 1,506
reporting; 155,147 recordkeeping
Estimated average hours per response:
FR G–1: 2.5 hours; FR G–2: 15 minutes;
FR G–3: 10 minutes; FR G–4: 2.0 hours;
FR T–4: 10 minutes; and FR U–1: 10
minutes
Number of respondents: FR G–1: 39;
FR G–2: 103; FR G–3: 278; FR G–4: 691;
FR T–4: 138; and FR U–1: 4,278
General description of report: These
information collections are mandatory
(15 U.S.C. §§ 78g). The information in
E:\FR\FM\18FEN1.SGM
18FEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 33 (Friday, February 18, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8364-8372]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-3184]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-7874-4]
Targeted Watersheds Grant Program: Call for Nominations
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA today is announcing the Call for Nominations of watershed
proposals under the Targeted
[[Page 8365]]
Watersheds Grant Program. Formerly called the Watershed Initiative, the
Targeted Watersheds Grant Program is a competitive grant program
designed to support the protection and restoration of the country's
water resources through a holistic watershed approach to water quality
management. For fiscal year 2005, Congress has appropriated a total of
$18 million for the Program of which $10 million will be directed to
nation-wide projects for improving water quality and the remaining $8
million will be directed toward projects in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed. Today's notice sets forth the process that will be used for
selecting watersheds for the nation-wide projects, and serves as the
call for nominations from Governors and Tribal Leaders. Subsequently,
EPA will publish a separate notice that will outline the criteria and
selection process for Chesapeake Bay nominations.
DATES: The deadline for EPA receipt of nominations, both in hard copy
and in electronic form, is May 19, 2005. 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 one copy
to Carol Peterson, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, USEPA,
Room 7136E, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004;
telephone 202-566-1304. The other copy is to be delivered to the
appropriate EPA Regional office (see section IV.E for regional names
and addresses). Please mark all submissions ATTN: Targeted Watersheds.
In addition to the hard copies, a portion of the nomination package
must also be submitted electronically to the e-mail address provided;
the subject line should read ``STATE--WATERSHED NAME.'' Please follow
the detailed instructions provided in section IV.D 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 VII of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below. Additional information, forms, and any updated guidance will be
posted on EPA's Targeted Watersheds Web site at https://www.epa.gov/
owow/watershed/initiative.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Funding Opportunity Description
A. The Targeted Watersheds Grant Program
The Targeted Watersheds Grant Program is built on the fundamental
concept of managing water resource use and water quality on a holistic
watershed basis. The watershed approach focuses regional and State
efforts to integrate water and source water protection programs to
support locally-led collaborative efforts within hydrologically defined
boundaries that protect and restore our aquatic resources and
ecosystems. This approach offers an efficient opportunity to tackle
today's environmental challenges. The Targeted Watersheds Grant Program
encourages watershed practitioners to examine water-related problems in
the context of the larger watershed in which they exist, to develop
solutions to those problems by creatively applying the full array of
available tools, including Federal, State, and local programs, and to
restore and preserve water resources through strategic planning and
implementation that draw in public and private sector partners. Both
the watershed approach and the Targeted Watersheds Grant Program focus
on multi-faceted plans for protecting and restoring water resources
that are developed using partnership efforts of diverse stakeholders.
Projects selected for funding will go beyond implementing separate,
detached activities and will focus on implementing and measuring the
effectiveness of an integrated watershed-based approach to conservation
and restoration throughout a watershed. Successful nominees will focus
on far-reaching approaches that will improve water quality and are
consistent with the goals of the Clean Water Act.
B. Goals for 2005
In this third year of the program, EPA will continue to support
coalition-based strategies for improving water resources on a watershed
level, including activities such as attaining water quality standards,
and protecting and restoring the natural and beneficial uses of
floodplains. The goal of the Targeted Watersheds Grant Program is to
advance successful partnerships and coalitions that have completed the
necessary watershed assessments and have a technically sound watershed
plan ready to carry out. This Program is intended to encourage the kind
of pro-active, and incentive-based protection and restoration measures
that will yield cleaner water and better protected ecosystems.
EPA will select projects that are intended to improve water quality
and are based on the fundamentals of the Clean Water Act, that is,
projects that relate to the prevention, reduction, and elimination of
water pollution. The Agency will continue to base its selections on
projects that exhibit a high degree of innovation, measurable results,
partnerships, outreach and cost-effectiveness. In addition, special
emphasis this year will be placed on water quality trading projects. To
encourage States, interstate agencies, and tribes to develop and
implement water quality trading programs for nutrients, sediments, and
other pollutants, EPA will reserve about fifteen percent of the
Targeted Watersheds grant funds for promising trading projects that
meet the prescribed criteria. While trading projects may take longer to
develop and implement due to necessary front-end tasks such as
establishing a market framework and identifying applicable trading
ratios, EPA is interested in funding trading projects that will result
in reduced pollutant loadings in the near to mid-term. Thus, more
specific criteria related to trading is provided in this year's
solicitation (see section V.A). Examples of trading proposals with
these characteristics can be found on the Targeted Watersheds Grant
Program Web site at https://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/initiative/2004/
04proposals.html under Passiac River, NJ and Cape Fear River, NC. EPA's
Water Quality Trading Policy and other relevant information can be
found at https://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/trading/.
II. Award Information
Approximately $10 million will be available to support nation-wide
projects of which fifteen percent will be reserved for trading
projects. Funding also will be continued to existing grants that work
toward providing services, such as, national tools, training, and
technical assistance to all watershed organizations.
EPA anticipates that typical grant awards for the selected
watersheds will range from $600,000 to $900,000 depending on the amount
requested and the overall size and need of the project. It is important
to note that, even if selected to receive a grant, full funding of a
proposal is not guaranteed, and EPA reserves the right to make partial
awards. For example, the Agency may choose not to fund one particular
aspect of the proposal or may choose to decrease a requested award by a
certain percentage. EPA also reserves the right
[[Page 8366]]
to reject all proposals and make no awards.
III. Eligibility Information
A. Authority
For FY 2005, EPA has been granted independent authority for the
Targeted Watersheds Grant Program. This authority is contained in the
Consolidated Appropriations (Omnibus Bill), Public Law 108-447. The new
authority allows EPA to tailor the scope of the Targeted Watersheds
Grant Program to better align with the goals of the Clean Water Act of
fishable, swimmable waters, and the objectives of the Agency's
strategic plan to protect the environment and safeguard human health.
This clears the way for EPA to fund a broader range of projects and
allows the Agency to fund projects that directly entail environmental
protection and/or restoration activities, most specifically, on-the-
ground implementation projects.
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 https://
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 Applicants
Any governmental or nonprofit non-governmental entity is eligible
to receive a grant under the Targeted Watersheds Grant Program.
Recipients can include: States and tribes, public water pollution
control agencies; interstate or inter-tribal agencies; public or non-
profit private agencies, institutions, or organizations; and
individuals. All non-profit watershed organizations are eligible and
are encouraged to submit a nomination. Watershed organizations that
were selected for funding in 2003 or 2004 are not eligible. For-profit
commercial entities are ineligible for funding but are strongly
encouraged to be active partners. 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 (40 CFR 31.3).
Interjurisdictional watershed partnerships, that is, those that
encompass abutting areas and, thus, neighboring political authorities,
or that transcend international boundaries, are encouraged. Watershed
nominations that encompass more than one 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).
C. Eligible Activities
EPA will consider any activity, apart from those listed below, that
will result in the protection, preservation, and restoration of a
watershed, that incorporates a watershed-based approach, and meets the
prescribed criteria, e.g, is well developed and will produce measurable
environmental outcomes. Activities proposed for funding are not
necessarily expected to address the entire watershed, but are expected
to have been developed based on a comprehensive assessment and plan for
the watershed. As such, all activities must directly support the
described watershed plan, and Targeted Watersheds Grant funds must be
used in accordance with the plan. Examples of selected proposals and
funded activities from 2003 and 2004 can be found on the Web site at
https://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/initiative/2003/ and https://
www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/initiative/2004/, respectively.
EPA has chosen to declare certain activities ineligible for
funding. These include any proposals to directly support activities
required under the Clean Water Act. This entails funds for the
development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), and Office of Water
regulatory programs including Phase II Stormwater projects. Proposals
implementing the non-regulatory component of TMDLs, e.g. the elements
of a watershed plan that address non-point pollution, however, are
eligible. The construction of buildings or other major structures, or
the purchase of major equipment or machinery, also will not be funded
under this Program. 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.
D. Cost Sharing/Matching Requirements
EPA is requiring applicants to demonstrate a minimum non-Federal
match of 25% of the total cost of the project or projects. This means
EPA will fund a maximum of 75% of the total project cost. 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 regulations governing
matching fund requirements (40 CFR 31.24 or 40 CFR 30.23). Federal
funds may not be used to meet the match requirement for this grant
program unless authorized by the statute governing their use.
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. 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 VII, forty-
five (45) days prior to the nomination deadline. If approved, the
nomination will be scored as if it meets the minimum 25% match.
IV. Application and Submission Information
EPA will select watersheds and will award the grants through a
national competition. Nominations will be selected based on the quality
of the written materials received and adherence to the selection
criteria and goals of the Targeted Watersheds Grant Program. Emphasis
will be placed on those proposed projects with clear objectives,
measurable environmental indicators, and an executable monitoring plan.
Funding decisions will be made based on the evaluation criteria
outlined in section V.A of this notice. EPA will invite only those
nominees whose proposals are selected under this Program to submit
formal grant applications (section VI).
A. Nomination Process
Watersheds must be nominated by Governors or Tribal Leaders. (For
the purposes of this notice, a tribal nomination may be submitted by an
elected 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.
A Governor or Tribal Leader may nominate up to two watersheds, each
of which is wholly within its boundaries, plus an unlimited number of
interjurisdictional watersheds, i.e., those that encompass several
States, Tribes or countries. For
[[Page 8367]]
interjurisdictional watersheds, any of the engaged Governors/Tribal
Leaders may submit the nomination. Such watershed nominations must
include an official endorsement of all partnering States or Tribes in
their nomination package. Governors and Tribal Leaders are to submit
their watershed nominations to EPA.
B. Content and Form of Nomination Package
In preparing nomination materials, nominees should focus on the
overarching goal by which their overall nomination will be judged, i.e,
how the proposed projects are interrelated to benefit the whole
watershed. Within the required components outlined below, 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 V.A below.
Each nomination package must contain the components listed in this
section. Failure to submit any of this information ultimately will
result in disqualification and removal from the selection process.
Conversely, additional, unsolicited material is strongly discouraged
and any such material submitted will not be reviewed.
1. Nomination Letter. A letter signed by the Governor or Tribal
Leader formally nominating the watershed for consideration for funding
must accompany each nomination package.
2. Title Page. The title page must indicate: (1) The name of the
watershed along with the designated 8-digit Hydrological Unit Code(s)
(HUCs); (2) if applicable, the impaired waters, such as any degraded
stream segments within the project area that are on the State's 303(d)
list; (3) nominee contact information, i.e., name, affiliation,
address, telephone, and e-mail of the person with whom the Agency
should correspond; and (4) Internet Web site (i.e., URL) of the
organization if available. HUCs (also known as USGS Cataloging Units)
and State 303(d) listings can be found on EPA's Surf Your Watershed Web
site at https://www.epa.gov/surf/locate/index.cfm.
3. Abstract. A 150-word or less summary of the nomination.
4. Project Description. The narrative description of the proposed
activities is limited to a total of ten, double-spaced pages in which
the following components are addressed. The page numbers shown in
parentheses for each component listed below are suggested lengths only,
and nominees may adjust their project description within the 10-page
limit in a manner that best fits their needs.
(a) Introduction (2 pages).
Characterize the watershed, including any wetlands, 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, socio-economic and/or cultural characteristics.
(2) An identification and prioritization 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 Projects (7 pages).
Describe the projects to be funded under the Targeted Watersheds
Grant Program. These should be described in terms of activities that
will meet the stated objectives and yield positive environmental
outcomes. The following information must be included:
(1) Describe how the project(s) will improve the identified
impairments or stream conditions. Explain how the projects fit together
and are interrelated to benefit and affect watershed health.
(2) Describe in detail 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 and dates for determining whether or not
the intended goals of the watershed project(s) are being realized.
(3) Describe the monitoring and evaluation component along with
identified environmental indicators. Attention should be given to
additional pre-project baseline data requirements. This component must
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., on-the-ground work performed). The progress and
performance of the projects must be measurable by technically sound
practices.
(4) Include a description of expected environmental outcomes.
Describe the method to measure the environmental improvement that is
expected to result from the project(s) and describe how the project(s)
will be evaluated. Criteria by which the project(s) will be judged and
by which the project will be considered successful should be
incorporated into the description.
(5) Describe 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 Outreach Activities (1 page).
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, describe the outreach plan and how it will transfer the
knowledge gained from this effort to other areas and organizations.
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 Targeted
Watersheds Web site at https://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/initiative/
budget.form. All budget information, including grant administration
costs, 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 subsections
(b) and (c) below). Nominees should include cost estimates for each of
the proposed project activities to be conducted under the grant. Due to
the increase in grant management requirements, EPA suggests that
nominees budget up to 15% of the total project costs for administrative
purposes.
Explanations of the costs associated with each entry should be
included in the narrative portion of the nomination package.
[[Page 8368]]
Table 1.--Budget Information--EPA Targeted Watersheds Grant Program \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watershed Project, Activity or Work
Plan Element Federal Non-Federal Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION A--BUDGET SUMMARY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. $ $ $
2. ........................ ....................... .......................
3. ........................ ....................... .......................
4. ........................ ....................... .......................
---------------------------
Totals.......................... $ $ $
\1\ Excerpted from Standard Form 424A, OMB Circular A-102.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watershed Project, Activity or Work Plan Element
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total
Budget Categories (1) (2) (3) (4)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION B--BUDGET CATEGORIES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Personnel $ $ $ $ $
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)......... $ $ $ $ $
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Matching Requirement. Applicants must demonstrate a minimum
non-Federal match of 25% of the total cost of the project or projects.
This means EPA will fund a maximum of 75% of the total project cost. To
determine if the minimum match is met, the following formulas may be
helpful:
amount ($) requested from EPA x 100 <= 75 or
cost ($) of entire project
amount ($) requested from EPA = minimum match ($)
3
For example, a $1.2M grant could be used to support a $1.6M project
proposal. Another way of looking at this is if the nominee requests
$1M, it must be able to provide $333,334.00 in matching funds or
services. In this example, the total cost of the proposal would be just
under $1.34M. Please contact your Regional contact person listed in
section VII if you have any questions about calculating the match
requirement.
(c) Annual Conference. Watershed organizations selected for grant
funding will be required to attend the annual three-day National
Targeted Watersheds Conference during each year of the grant. The
purpose of this conference is to provide these watershed organizations
with training and support to better restore, protect, and manage their
watersheds, provide help and assistance in Agency grants management
requirements and, most importantly, 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 hosting
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 three-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 and recipients may
need to purchase appropriate ORACLE software. 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. An introduction to the
STORET system will be provided at the annual conference, as well as
information regarding training sessions sponsored by EPA. 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 https://www.epa.gov/STORET.
6. Appendices.
(a) Experience in Grant Management (1 page maximum).
To ensure that nominees possess the management and technical skills
required to administer the grant, a description of management
experience is needed. In a 1-page appendix to the project description,
provide information on the past experience of the project leader(s)
and/or partners in designing, implementing, coordinating activities,
and effectively managing a Federal grant. 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.
(b) Letter(s) of Support.
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 description
and submitted
[[Page 8369]]
as appendices include the following items.
(i) Signed letter(s) from active partners indicating their
commitment to implementing the workplan or for specific proposed
projects.
(ii) 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 its commitment toward the projects.
(iii) 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 position in Canada or Mexico is acceptable.
(c) Map. A map of the watershed and the proposal work areas is
required.
C. Format
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) a 150-word or less abstract, (4) project
description, (5) the budget form, (6) a one-page description of grant
management experience, (7) letter(s) and certification(s) of support,
and (8) maps. The project 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 IV.B. To ensure a fair and equitable
evaluation of the nominations, please do not exceed the above limits. A
nomination that contains a project description narrative that exceeds
ten double-spaced pages will not be considered. The title page,
abstract, and required appendices will not count toward the 10-page
limit. The entire nomination package should be printed on 8\1/
2\x11 paper.
D. Submission Process
EPA invites each Governor and Tribal Leader to submit nominations
for grants under the 2005 Targeted Watershed Grants Program.
Nominations must be received by EPA by May 19, 2005.
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, project 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 should be in the format ``STATE--Watershed Name'' (e.g.,
MD--Rock Creek). No confidential business information should be sent
via e-mail. If unusual or extraordinary circumstances prevent
electronic submission of the nomination, please contact the appropriate
Regional contact person to discuss alternate arrangements.
2. Paper. Two hard copies of the complete nomination package
(including all nominating and support letters) are required to be sent
by express mail or courier service. One package is to be sent to EPA
Headquarters and the other is to go to the appropriate Regional Office.
All names and addresses are listed below. Mark all submissions: ATTN:
Targeted Watersheds.
E. Submission Addresses
Submissions must be delivered to the following:
Headquarters:
Carol Peterson, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds; U.S.
EPA; Rm. 7136; 1301 Constitution Avenue; NW., Washington, DC 20004.
EPA Regional Offices:
Region I--Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, New
Hampshire
Marilyn Smith-Church; U.S. EPA Region 1; 1 Congress Street, Suite
1100; Mail Code CWN; Boston, MA 02114-2023.
Region II--New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands
Cyndy Kopitsky, U.S. EPA Region 2; 290 Broadway; 24th Floor; New
York, NY 10007-1866;
Region III--Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia,
Washington, DC
Ralph Spagnolo; U.S. EPA Region 3; Mail Code 3WP12; 1650 Arch
Street; Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029.
Region IV--Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee
William L. Cox; U.S. EPA Region 4; Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center;
15th Floor; 61 Forsyth Street, SW.; Atlanta, GA 30303-3104.
Region V--Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin
Paul Thomas; U.S. EPA Region 5; Mail Code WW-16J; 77 W. Jackson
Blvd; Chicago, IL 60604.
Region VI--Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, New Mexico
Brad Lamb; U.S. EPA Region 6; Mail Code 6WQ-EW; 1445 Ross Avenue;
Dallas, TX 75202.
Region VII--Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska
Margaret Stockdale; U.S. EPA Region 7; Mail Code WWPD/GPCB; 901
North 5th Street; Kansas City, KS 66101.
Region VIII--Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah,
Wyoming
Peter Ismert; U.S. EPA Region 8; Mail Code 8EPR-EP; 999 18th
Street, Suite 300; Denver, CO 80202-2466.
Region IX--Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, American Samoa, Mariana
Islands, Guam
Sam Ziegler; U.S. EPA Region 9; Mail Code WTR-3; 75 Hawthorne
Street; San Francisco, CA 94105.
Region X--Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington
Bevin Reid; U.S. EPA Region 10; Mail Code OWW-137; 1200 Sixth
Avenue; Seattle, WA 98101
F. Checklist
To assist nominees in collecting and formatting their package
materials, the following checklist is provided (Table 2). These factors
will be used by the Agency in screening the nominations for
eligibility. The absence of any of these factors could result in
disqualification from the onset without notice.
Table 2.--Checklist of Required Elements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Package Components:
Nominating letter signed by the Governor or Tribal Leader [ballot]
or Tribal Official......................................
Title page............................................... [ballot]
150-word Abstract........................................ [ballot]
10-page Project Description.............................. [ballot]
Budget form.............................................. [ballot]
1-page description of Grant Management Experience........ [ballot]
Letter(s) signed by active partners...................... [ballot]
[[Page 8370]]
Letter(s) committing matching funds...................... [ballot]
Letters(s) supporting inter-jurisdictional nominations [ballot]
(if applicable).........................................
Map(s)................................................... [ballot]
2. Project Description Format:
12-point font size....................................... [ballot]
Double-spaced............................................ [ballot]
1'' Margins.............................................. [ballot]
8\1/2\ x 11'' paper...................................... [ballot]
3. Match Requirement:
25% Minimum match........................................ [ballot]
Match includes Federal funds and applicant has cited [ballot]
authority...............................................
Waiver of match requested due to undue hardship (Tribal [ballot]
only)...................................................
4. Submission:
1 hard copy of all materials sent to EPA Headquarters.... [ballot]
1 hard copy of all materials sent to appropriate EPA [ballot]
Regional Office.........................................
Electronic copy of narrative text only sent to [ballot]
initiative.watershed@epa.gov (subject line: STATE-
Watershed Name).........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Application Review Information
A. Evaluation Criteria
Watershed nominations will be reviewed, evaluated, and scored based
on the following criteria with a possible total score of 60 points.
1. Innovation (10 points). Emphasis will be placed on progressive
and forward-thinking projects and watershed nominations that undertake
unique, innovative, or novel approaches to environmental problem-
solving. The Agency recognizes that there can be innovative approaches
that do not involve trading. However, for proposals that incorporate
trading approaches to water quality, EPA will view more favorably
projects that have the following characteristics: a TMDL or other
``cap'' for the pollutant is either in place or is imminent; a
pollutant that comes from numerous (point and nonpoint) sources within
the watershed and several sources have a pollutant control obligation;
and some sources that are likely to have significantly different
control costs to achieve the desired pollutant reductions.
2. Tangible Solutions (total of 30 points). Nominees will be
evaluated based on the extent they demonstrate an in-depth knowledge of
the watershed ecology, present a sound approach for combating threats
and impairments, and include a description of how environmental results
can be achieved and measured. Under this criteria, reviewers will focus
on the following components:
(a) Feasibility (10 points). Reviewers will look at how well
developed the project is, i.e., the readiness of the project, technical
merit, and expected environmental improvements. The focus will be on
nominations that describe projects that are part of larger watershed
assessments and plans, and reflect a watershed-based approach to
conservation and restoration. The evaluation will focus on the overall
soundness of the nomination from both an ecological and design
perspective with an emphasis on those projects that can be implemented
quickly. In summary, the evaluation will focus on whether nominees 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) Environmental Measures (15 points). Under this criterion, a
nomination will be evaluated based on how well it is supported by a
clearly articulated set of performance and progress measures, and
identified and measurable environmental indicators. A more detailed
monitoring and data collection strategy is preferred. Reviewers will
evaluate the proposal in relation to its likelihood to achieve
predicted measurable, defensible environmental results in a relatively
short time period, including potentially attaining expected outcomes,
reaching project goals, and producing on-the-ground, quantifiable
environmental change using sound science.
(c) Integration (5 points). Reviewers will evaluate the extent to
which the proposed project plan provides an approach that integrates
various tools including, but not limited to, those provided by local,
State, Tribal and Federal programs, to solve the environmental
problems. Emphasis will be placed on how well the proposal demonstrates
a thoughtful and a strategic approach to problem-solving.
3. Broad Support (total of 10 points). Acknowledging and responding
to representative interests from a broad and varied perspective is
crucial to any successful watershed enterprise. This criteria will be
based on the nominees ability to demonstrate and substantiate a strong
collaborative effort.
(a) Partnerships (5 points). The reviewers will examine whether the
watershed nomination incorporates a wide variety of public, private,
and non-profit participation. The evaluation 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, Tribal, and local entities, along
with evidence of broad-based community involvement.
(b) Interjurisdictionality (5 points). Reviewers will evaluate
whether the nomination actively involves more than one governmental
entity, be it municipal, county, State, Tribal, 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 evaluated on the design
and breadth of their outreach program with an emphasis on 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. Reviewers will also
assess how the proposal addresses training and educational approaches
to disseminating information about successful approaches and results.
5. Financial Integrity (5 points). The evaluation will examine the
adequacy of the budget information provided, and whether the budget is
reasonable and clearly presented. Reviewers will also consider the
extent that the proposal exceeds the minimum match requirement or can
certify a broad range of leveraging capacity.
[[Page 8371]]
B. Review and Selection Process
Governors and Tribal Leaders are to submit their watershed
nominations to EPA. Once received by EPA, the nominations will undergo
four phases of review. In phase one, all nominations will be pre-
reviewed, or screened, by EPA Regional staff to determine if they are
eligible, complete, and prepared in accordance with the instructions
provided in this notice. If any of the required elements of the
nomination package are inadvertently omitted, EPA may choose to contact
the nominee. In phase two, each of the Agency's Regional Offices will
convene a Review and Evaluation Panel to initially assess how well the
nominations meet the evaluation criteria described above. Based on the
panel review and recommendations, each Regional Administrator will then
forward the Region's top three candidates to EPA Headquarters Office of
Water in Washington, DC.
Phases three and four of the review process will occur at the
national level. Upon receipt of the Regional recommendations, the
Office of Water will convene a Technical Advisory Panel consisting of
representatives from the Agency's Program and Regional Offices to
review and rank the watershed nominations. In addition to the
evaluation criteria listed above, factors such as geographic diversity,
project diversity, watershed size, urban/rural mix, and cost will be
considered in ranking nominations. During phase four, the National
Panel will present its findings and recommendations to the Assistant
Administrator of Water for approval and transmittal to the
Administrator. The Administrator will make the final decision on the
watersheds to be funded. Finalists will be contacted by telephone. All
nominees, including those who are not selected for funding, will be
notified by mail.
EPA expects to announce the selected watershed nominations in the
summer of 2005. Selected watershed grantees will complete the grant
award process, including final grant workplan negotiations through the
appropriate EPA Regional Office in the fall of 2005. In general, grants
awarded will be one-time awards and grant recipients should use the
funds within 2-3 years (slightly longer for trading projects). Any
subsequent Targeted Watersheds Grant 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.
VI. Post-Selection Award Administration Information
A. Applying for a Grant
EPA will invite only nominees whose proposals are selected to
submit grant applications. Once notified that their proposal has been
selected for funding, the nominee 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 https://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.
A new policy directive from the Office of Management and Budget
effective October 1, 2004 requires grant applicants to provide a number
from the Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) Data Universal Numbering System
(DUNS) when applying for Federal assistance agreements. Organizations
can receive a DUNS number at no cost by calling the toll free DUNS
number request line at 1-866-705-5711. Additional information on
obtaining a DUNS number can also be found at: https://www.dnb.com.
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 will be notified if dispute provisions change. Applicants
should clearly 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,
Targeted Watershed 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 Officer will be determined in the pre-award
negotiations between the selected nominee and EPA. The designated EPA
Regional Contact listed in section VII 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. Grant applicants will
receive a notice of award through postal mail. The notice of award
signed by the Award Official (or equivalent) in the Grants
Administration Division is the authorizing document, and will be mailed
to the individual signing the original application.
B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements
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 https://
www.epa.gov/quality/qa_docs.html#noeparqt.
C. Reporting
Project monitoring and reporting requirements can be found in 40
CFR 30.50-30.52, 40 CFR 31.40-31.41 and 40 CFR 40.160.1-40.160.5. 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 format of these reports will be
identified during the grant application time frame, and will include
reporting on established performance measures indicated in the project
description (i.e., environmental, infrastructure, and implementation
measures). The final report is due 90 days after the grant has expired.
Grant managers should consult, and work
[[Page 8372]]
closely with, their Regional contact person throughout the award
period.
VII. Agency Contacts
Headquarters:
Carol Peterson, telephone 202-566-1034; e-mail
initiative.watershed@epa.gov.
EPA Regional Offices:
Region I--Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, New
Hampshire
Marilyn Smith-Church or Jerry Potamis, telephones 617-918-1133 and
617-918-1651; e-mails smith-church.marilyn@epa.gov and
potamis.gerald@epa.gov, respectively.
Region II--New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands
Cyndy Kopitsky; telephone 212-637-3832; e-mail
kopitsky.cyndy@epa.gov.
Region III--Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia,
Washington, DC
Ralph Spagnolo, telephone 215-814-2718; e-mail
spagnolo.ralph@epa.gov.
Region IV--Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee
William L. Cox, telephone 404-562-9351; e-mail
cox.williaml@epa.gov.
Region V--Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin
Paul Thomas, telephone 312-886-7742; e-mail thomas.paul@epa.gov.
Region VI--Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, New Mexico
Brad Lamb, telephone 214-665-6683; e-mail lamb.brad@epa.gov.
Region VII--Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska
Margaret Stockdale, telephone 913-551-7936; e-mail
stockdale.margaret@epa.gov.
Region VIII--Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah,
Wyoming
Peter Ismert; telephone 303-312-6215; e-mail ismert.peter@epa.gov.
Region IX--Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, American Samoa, Mariana
Islands, Guam
Sam Ziegler, telephone 415-972-3399; e-mail ziegler.sam@epa.gov.
Region X--Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington
Bevin Reid, telephone 206-553-1566; e-mail Reid.BevinG@epa.gov.
Dated: February 14, 2005.
Benjamin H. Grumbles,
Assistant Administrator for Water.
[FR Doc. 05-3184 Filed 2-17-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P