54810
federal Register/Vol. 57, No. 165/Monday, August 26, 2002/Notices
begun (e.g., estimated load reductions
juld be reported annually once project
immementation has progressed to the
poirVthat practices have been installed
or irnMemehted).
Thelkograded CRTS system,
mcludiiXtext fields, will enable States
to satisfylb of their annual reporting
requiremeirW through CRTS. However,
many Stateslke using their annual
reports as a me^ns to not only meet
statutory reportmg requirements but
also to educate Snte legislatures, other
agencies, and the pVblic, of the progress
that they are makinathrough
implementation of tnVr nonpoint
source programs. Therefore, States may
find it most beneficial t^publish a
separate annual report, wt to do so in
a cost- and time-saving rnfcner that
borrows heavily from the project
summaries and data reporte%in CRTS.
VI. Waiver Process
Circumstances may arise whl
State believes require it to deveAo and
submit a work plan in a particulalfc'ear
that fails to meet one or more
requirements in these guidelines. I:
a circumstance arises, and the State
believes that the circumstance justifii
waiver from one or more requirement
in these guidelines, the State may
submit a request for a waiver to EPJFs
Regional Water Division Director .
request should identify the requirement
from which a waiver is requester the
circumstances requiring the w^rer; a
description of the activities \sA projects
that the State will be implementing in
lieu of those required by those
guidelines; and a commitrJInt to adhere
to the guidelines to the gjJatest extent
possible. The Regional Elision Director
may approve the waiveFforthe year
requested with the concurrence of the
Director of the Assesment and
Watershed Protection Division,
Please note that JRis waiver process
applies only to try requirements
established in th^e and previous
Section 319 guyelines; it does not
apply to any swtutory or regulatory
requirements/eiterated in these
guidelines. M addition, this process is
not require^for any Regional
authorizaMon of the use of more than
20% of incremental funds to develop
watershJd-based plans in appropriate
circurwtances as discussed earlier in
this rjemorandum.
VllJConclusion
'gnificant challenges remain in our
bits to abate NFS pollution, protect
eatened waters, and restore impaired
Iquatic resources. EPA will work with
States to make the most effective use of
Federal resources to meet these
challenges.
Appendix A—Significant NonpoJ
•Source Grants Guidance Don
EPA has published several guicM&ce
, documents that apply to the Sedton 319
grants guidance process. TheseMocuments
are listed and briefly summarised below.
Each of them may be revieiMQ online from
the following address at EBK's nonpoint
source Web site: http:llwffr.epa.gov/ovfovfl
nps/cwaci.h tml.
(1) Nonpoint Source^rogram and Grants
Guidance for Fiscal yars 1997 and Future
'Years (May 1996). *Bs 33-page document is
the chief nationaLronpomt source program
document. It describes criteria and processes
for States and Wrritories to upgrade their
nonpoint soiime management programs;
summarizesMatutory and regulatory
provisions^at apply to the award of
nonpoinU*ource grants; and provides
guidancmlesigned to assist States and
Territo«es in implementing effective
and projects.
(2JProcess and Criteria for Funding State
anyTemtorial Nonpoint Source Management
P^grams in FY 1999 (August 18,1998). This
_)age document established guidelines for
le use of incremental dollars ($100 million)
'that were anticipated to be appropriated later
that year. The guidance (1) authorized States
and Territories to use up to 20 percent of
their Section 319 funds to upgrade and refine
their nonpoint source programs and
assessments; (2) directed that the incremental
^dollars be focused upon implementation of
watershed restoration action strategies in
jh-priority watersheds identified by the
Ifes and Territories as not meeting clean
?r and other natural resource goals; and
(3) wtablished a schedule for the award of
the ulcremental funds.
(3) Minding the Development and
hnplenwitation of Watershed Restoration
Action Srategies under Section 319 of the
Clean Wier Act (December 4,1998). This 4-
page document reiterated the priority placed
on using tlmincremental $100 million to
address the^tates' and Territories' high-
priority wate*heds that do not meet clean
water and oth% natural resource goals,
focused particularly in sub-watersheds where
NFS control actmities are likely to have the
greatest positive%ipact. It identified 303(d)
sub-watersheds assign-priorities for such
work.
(4) Supplementalwuidance for the Award
of Section 319 NonpMit Source Grants in FY
2000 (December 21,1%9). This 10-page
document (1) asked thBRegions to assure that
Section 319 grants that delude programs or
projects that assist anim«feeding operations
(AFO) include a provisiormp assure that any
AFO which receives finan™l assistance
under the grant has and wilmmplement a
comprehensive nutrient marwement plan;
(2) recommended steps inteno%f3 to achieve
a suggestion by the congressioi
appropriations committees that ^percent of
the Section 319 funds be allocatemto clean
lakes; and (3) announced and discmsed
EPA's intention to work with the SSles to
consider changes to the Section 319
reporting/tracking system to support program
needs, including promoting better integration
lith Section 305(b) data and Section 303(d)
upplemental Guidance for the Award
its of Se^kpn 319 Nonpoint Source Grants in FY
2001 (%FR 70899-70905, Nov. 28, 2000).
This docKnent (1) discussed how States and^
Territorie*nay use funding increases
appropriate! in FY 2001; (2) broadened thg
use of the "Mcremental" ($100 million) t
authorize themuse to develop and implj^ent
the nonpoint sljpce components of T
in watersheds Aoughout the State; ajf! (3)
directed that eadKtate or Territory1
conditional appro^l under SectiorB217 of
the Coastal Zone AcvReauthorizajCn
Amendments of 1990\.'CZARA.'j^evote at
least $100,000 of its F"!fc001
grant dollars to specifictioi
designed to meet all outs
for NOAA and EPA appro:
(6) Supplemental Guidej
of Section 319 Nonpoint
States and Territories in.
Subsequent Years (66
13, 2001). This doi
focus of the "incremi
funding on develo
watershed-based
watershed-based
waters through
a transition to
lion 319
bat are
; conditions
for the Award
Grants to
12 and
7657, Sept.
it (1) ii&eased the
rtal" ($10%nillion)
TMDLsi
and imple^nting the
for 303(d)-l%ed
the State; (2) prodded for
ds the new focus i
2002; (3) diseased the need for long^
operation azJiinaintenanceof practic
funded witiFSection 319 funds; and (4l
discussed^ending changes in the GRT3
reportin^system.
Datef.August 19, 2002. .
Robei^i. Wayland, m,
Dire for, Office ofWetiands, Oceans, and
WaMrsheds.
Doc. 02-21652 Filed 8-23-02; 8:45 am]
LUNG CODE 6560-SO-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL-7268-1]
FY03 Wetland Program Development
Grants Guidelines
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: Wetland Program
Development Grants (WPDGs) provide
eligible applicants an opportunity to
conduct projects that promote the
coordination and acceleration of
research, investigations, experiments,
training, demonstrations, surveys, and
studies relating to the causes, effects,
extent, prevention, reduction, and
elimination of water pollution. While
WPDGs can continue to be used by
recipients to build and refine any
element of a comprehensive wetland
program, priority will be given to
funding projects that address the three
areas identified by EPA for FY03:
-------
\
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 165/Monday, August 25.. 2002/Notices
54811
Developing a comprehensive monitoring
and assessment program; improving the
effectiveness of compensatory
mitigation; and refining the protection ,
of vulnerable wetlands and aquatic ,'
resources. States, Tribes, local ,;
goverriments (S/T/LGs), interstate ,'
associations, intertribal consortia, an'd
national non-profit, non-governmefc'tal
organizations are eligible to apply.'This
document describes the grant selection
and award process for eligible^
applicants interested in applying for
FY03 WPDGs.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Connie Cahanap, Office of Wetlands,
Oceans, and Watersheds, Wetlands
Division (MC 4502T), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, Telephone:
(202) 566-1382, Fax: (202) 566-1349.
Robert H. Waylancf m, „
Director, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and
Watersheds. '
I. Introduction
The goals ,of the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) wetland
program include increasing the quantity
and quality of wetlands in the U.S. by
conserving and regaining wetland '
acreage and improving wetland health.
In pursuing these goals, EPA seeks to'
build the capacity of all levels of
government to develop and implement ,.
effective, comprehensive programs for
wcrfand protection and management.
The six program areas central to
achieving these goals are: regulation,
monitoring and assessment, restoration,
wetland water quality standards, public-
private partnerships, and coordination
among agencies with wetland or
wetland-related programs.
The Wetland Program Development
Grants, initiated in FY90, provide
States, Tribes, local governments (S/T/
LGs), interstate associations, intertribal
consortia, and national non-profit non-
governmental organizations (hereafter
referred to as award applicants or award
recipients) an opportunity to carry out
projects to develop and refine
comprehensive wetland programs.
Interest in the grant program has
continued to grow over the years. Since
1995, Congress has appropriated $15
million annually to support the grant
program. The type of projects that award
recipients can undertake to develop and
refine their comprehensive wetland
programs are diverse. In the past, award
recipients have pursued a wide range of
activities, such as developing
management tools for wetland
resources, advancing scientific and
technical tools for protecting wetland
health, improving availability of data
an^*H»formation about wetlands, and
training wetland managers and the
fifmblic about wetland and watershed
' values. Appendix B lists other examples
of potentially eligible projects.
The statutory authority for WPDGs is
section 104(b)(3) of the Clean Water Act
(CWA). Section 104(b)(3) of the CWA
restricts the use of these grants to
developing and refining wetland
management programs by conducting or
promoting the coordination and
acceleration of research, investigations,
experiments, training, demonstrations,
surveys, and studies relating to the
causes, effects, extent, prevention,
reduction, and elimination of water
pollution. These grants may not be used
for the operational support of wetland
programs. All projects funded through
this program must contribute to the ,
overall development and improvement
of S/T/LG wetland programs. Award
applicants must demonstrate that their
proposed project integrates with S/T/LG
wetland programs.
The general award and administration
process for WPDGs are governed by
regulations at 40 CFR part 30 ("Grants
and Agreements with Institutions of
Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other
Non-Profit Organizations"), 40 CFR part
31 ("Uniform Administrative
'Requirements for Grants and
Cooperative Agreements to State and
Local Governments") and 40 CFR part
;, 35, subpart A ("Environmental Program
^Grants for State, Interstate, and Local
^government Agencies") and subpart B
(''Environmental Program Grants for
Tribes"). This grant guideline document
outlines the administrative and
programmatic procedures specific to the
Wetland Program Development Grants.
TJ. Program Priorities
EPA has initiated an assessment of the
wetland program elements that will
move S/T/LGs toward developing
comprehensive wetland programs. For
FY03, the wetland program has
identified three areas as program
priorities for improving S/T/LG's ability
to protect and restore their wetlands: (1)
Developing a comprehensive wetland
monitoring and assessment program; (2)
improving the effectiveness of
compensatory mitigation; and (3)
refining the protection of vulnerable
wetlands and aquatic resources.
Applicants are encouraged to develop'
WPDG applications that address these
priorities.
A. Developing a Comprehensive
MonitorinBJand Assessment Program
This solicitation seeks proposals that
support the development of a
comprehensive S/T/LG wetland
monitoring and assessment program.
State and Tribal adoption of an ambient J
wetland monitoring and assessment f
program is the primary goal of this #*
solicitation (i.e., projects that build S/T/'
LG capacity to determine the causes, .'7
effects, and extent of pollution to /
wetland resources and develop /'
pollution prevention, reduction, and
elimination strategies). More
information related to wetland'
monitoring and assessment can be
found on the Internet at: http://
www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/
factsheets/monitor.pdf and http://
www. epa .gov/owow/wetlands/
factsheets/devgrants.pdf.
Project proposals may address
development, testing, and
demonstration of methods and programs
to monitor and assess wetlands. Projects
may evaluate:
1. The use of biological assessment
methods to improve the evaluation and
ranking of potential wetland sites for
restoration or acquisition;
2. The ecological consequences of a
given regulatory action or group of
actions;
3. The specifications and
implementation of compensatory
wetland mitigation;
4. The ecological performance of
wetland restoration; and/or
5. The cumulative effect of wetland
loss and restoration in terms of change
in the ambient ecological condition of
the overall aquatic resource.
Proposals should address how work to
accomplish the.particular objective(s)
assists S/T/LGs to implement
comprehensive wetland monitoring and
assessment programs.
Proposals also should describe how
methods under development will
improve decision-making across various
surface water management programs.
Provisional reporting of ambient
wetland condition, in Clean Water Act
Section 305(b) reports, is a logical first
step toward meeting that particular
objective. When preparing proposals,
care should be given to ensure that any
data collected under the grant is of such
qualitythat it can be relied on for other
purposes (as appropriate). Accordingly,
applicants may host technical training
workshops, establish regional or Sjate
interagency wetland monitoring arid
assessment workgroups, develop
volunteer monitoring programs, and'..
improve wetland inventories (e.g., use^
of hydrogeomorphic (HGM) wetland '
classification system). Examples of case
studies illustrating wetland monitoring ,;.
and assessment methods can be found
on the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/
-------
54812
Federal Register /Vol. 67, No. 165/'ivionu£iy,;:August 26, 2002/Notices
owow/wetlands/bawwg/case.html and
h tip://www, epa .gov/region 1 lecol
wetland/index.html. Many of the case
studies listed on those Web sites were
funded by WPDGs.
Monitoring data collected from
wetland monitoring projects must be
incorporated into 305(b) reports.
Additionally, recipients must download
data collected through monitoring
projects into STORET (short for
STOrage and RETrieval).STORET
provides an accessible, nationwide
central repository of water information
of known quality. See ivww.ppa.gov/
storet for further information about
uploading data into STORET.
B. Improving the Effectiveness of
Compensatory Mitigation
Priority will also be given to projects
that improve S/T/LG capacity to ensure
ecologically effective compensatory
mitigation for unavoidable impacts. For
example, WPDGs can be used to
develop and verify assessment methods
and/or tracking (reporting) systems that
document:
1. The technical adequacy of
compensatory mitigation project plans
(e.g., plan review standards);
2. the ecological suitability of
proposed compensatory mitigation
project sites (e.g., develop site review
standards in context with restoration
opportunity mapped at the [watershed
scale);
3. the compliance of mitigation
projects at various stages of
implementation; and
4. the assessment of mitigation
opportunities to address ciimulative
impacts to wetlands. ',
WPDG can also be used to develop
mitigation performance standards. Grant
funds can only be used forresearch,
investigations, experiments, training,
demonstrations, surveys, and studies to
support (or to improve or develop)
mitigation programs; they cannot be
used for specific mitigation activities
(e.g., implementation of individual
mitigation projects, mitigation banks, or
in-lieu-fee mitigation programs).
Background information describing
concepts and methods for improving the
effectiveness of compensatory,
mitigation can be found in a recent
National Academy of Science
publication, entitled "Compensating for
Wetland Losses Under the
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 165/Monday, August 26, 2002/Notices
54813
Comprehensive Wetland Program is
available on EPA's web page at http://
vrww.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/initiative/
^financial or by mail upon request by
calling the Wetlands Helpline at (800)
832-7828).
V. Application Procedures
WPDG applications from States,
Tribes, and local governments are
handled through EPA Regional Offices,
while applications from national non-
profit, non-governmental organizations
are handled through EPA Headquarters
(Appendix C). Applications from
interstate agencies and intertribal
consortia can be submitted to either a
Regional Office or Headquarters,
however, the same proposals cannot be
submitted to more than one office.
Headquarters and Regional Office staff
will review the applications received in
their respective offices and select the
most competitive projects for funding.
Both the quality and quantity of the
applications will play a significant role
in the selection of grants for funding.
A. Application Package
Interested applicants must submit an
application, which includes a work plan
and completed EPA grant forms. As
provided in 40 CFR 35.107 and 35.507,
for States, Tribes, local governments,
interstate agencies, and non-profit
organizations, an approvable plan must
specify (1) the work plan components to
be funded under the grant; (2) the
estimated work years and the estimated
funding amounts for each work plan
component; (3) the work plan
commitments for each work plan
component and a time frame for their
accomplishment; (4) a performance and
reporting schedule in accordance with
40 CFR 35.115 or 35.515; and (5) the
roles and responsibilities of the
recipient and EPA in carrying out the
work plan commitments. For national
nonprofit organizations, work plans
must include: (1) A summary of key
objectives and final products, preferably
in 50 words or less; (2) a detailed
description of project tasks and an
explanation of how the project will
contribute to developing or improving a
S/T/LG's wetland program; (3) a time-
line; (4) a budget and estimated funding
amounts for each work plan component;
(5) deliverables; (6) a performance
evaluation process and reporting
schedule; (7) roles and responsibilities
of the recipient and EPA in carrying out
the work plan commitments; and (8)
contact information for the Program
Manager, Grant Project Lead Manager,
and Account Manager. Headquarters
and some Regional Offices may ask S/
T/LGs to submit pre-application
proposals of grant projects for
competitive review (see Section V Part
B for deadlines). For specific regional
guidance, contact your Regional or
Headquarters EPA Grant Coordinator
(Appendix C). Grant application forms
are available at http://www.epa.gov/ogd/
hqgrant/ and by mail upon request by
calling the Grants Administration
Division at (202) 564-5305.
B. Deadlines
Full application proposals must be
submitted to the appropriate EPA office
and postmarked by the appropriate
Regional and Headquarters deadlines:
Region 1
States: )anuary 3i, 2003
Tribes: June 30, 2003
Region 2
January 31, 2003
Region 3
Pre-proposal: October 9, 2002
Final proposal: January 15, 2003
Region 4
December 2, 2002
Region 5
December 20, 2002
Region 6
November 1, 2002
Region 7
December 2, 2002
Region 8
December 3, 2002
Region 9
Pre-proposal: October 11, 2002
Final proposal: February 14, 2003
Region 10
Pre-proposal: November 4', 2002
Final proposal: February 21, 2003
Headquarters
Pre-proposal: December 9, 2002
Final proposal: March 22, 2003
Please contact the appropriate Grants
Coordinator (Appendix C) for further
information and/or to confirm
deadlines.
Applicants may request limited
assistance in revising work plans,
proposed funding levels to better reflect
the funding available, and preliminary
proposals to develop a project that
better reflects program priorities.
C. Match Requirements
S/T/LG, interstate agencies, and
intertribal consortia must provide a
minimum of 25% of each award's total
project costs in accordance with 40 CFR
31.24, 35.385, and 35.615. We
encourage States, Tribes and local
governments to provide a larger share of
the project's cost whenever possible
(i.e., in excess of the required 25% of
total project costs). Non-profit, non-
governmental organizations must also
provide a minimum of 25% of each
award's total project costs.
The match requirement can be met
with contributions from entities other
than the award recipient. Other Federal
money cannot be used as the match for
this grant program unless authorized by
the statute governing the award of the
other Federal funds. However, Indian
tribes can use funds provided under the
Indian Self-Determination and
Education Act (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.) to
provide the required matching funds to
the extent authorized by that Act and
implementing regulations.
Matching funds are considered grant
funds. They may be used for the
reasonable and necessary expenses of
carrying out the work plan. Any
restrictions on the use of grant funds
(i.e., prohibition of land acquisition
with grant funds) also apply to the use
of matching funds.
D. Quality Assurance/Quality Control
(QA/QC)
QA/QC and peer review are
sometimes applicable to these grants
(see 40 CFR 30.54 and 40 CFR 31.45).
QA/QC requirements apply to the
collection of environmental data.
Environmental data are any
measurements or information that
describe environmental processes,
location, or conditions; ecological or
health effects and consequences; or the
performance of environmental
technology. Environmental data include
information collected directly from
measurements, produced from models,
and compiled from other sources such
as data bases or literature. Applicants
should allow sufficient time and
resources for-this process. EPA can
assist-applicants determine whether
QA/QC is required for the proposed
project. If QA/QC is required for the
project, the applicant is encouraged to
work with the appropriate EPA quality
staff to determine the appropriate QA/
QC practices for the project. If the
applicant has an EPA-approved quality
assurance project plan and it covers the
project in the application, then they
need only reference the plan in their
application. Contact the appropriate
Regional or Headquaters Grant
Coordinator (Appendix C) for referral to
an EPA quality staff.
VI. Additional Program Information
A. Performance Partnership Grants
A Performance Partnership Grant
(PPG) is a multi-program grant made to
a State, Tribe, interstate agency, or
intertribal consortium from funds
appropriated for many of EPA's
environmental program grants. Local
governments are not eligible for PPGs.
PPGs are voluntary and provide
------- |