Jump to main content.

Watershed Initiative Home 2004 Questions and Answers

Introduction to the Targeted Watersheds Grant Program

What is the Targeted Watersheds Grant Program?

The Targeted Watersheds Grant Program is a relatively new EPA program designed to encourage successful community-based approaches and management techniques to protect and restore the nation's waters. The Targeted Watersheds Grant Program is a competitive grant program predicated on the Administrator's fundamental principles of environmental improvement: collaboration, new technologies, market incentives, and results-oriented strategies. This year's winners were chosen because they best demonstrated their ability to achieve on-the-ground, measurable environmental results relatively quickly. Each of the watershed organizations exhibited strong partnerships with a wide variety of support; creative, socio-economic approaches to water restoration and protection; and explicit monitoring and environmentally-based performance measures.

Is the Targeted Watersheds Grant Program the same thing as the Watershed Initiative?

Yes, EPA is celebrating a successful first year by changing the name. The Targeted Watersheds Grant Program has now completed its second year. In its first year the Agency selected 20 watersheds, and today is announcing its selection of 14 additional watersheds, which through their lead organizations will spearhead an array of promising projects to improve watershed health.

What do you expect to accomplish?

Affecting any meaningful improvement to the environment requires strong national standards-like the Clean Water Act; and improvement requires collaborative local efforts aimed at achieving those standards. It requires a significant investment and commitment from a lot of people. In the past thirty years, since the inception of the Clean Water Act, the American public has proven that it can make a difference. The investment is beginning to pay off. While we have significantly reduced point source pollution, EPA is on the threshold of taking on the enormous task of battling pollution from sources not so easily defined. The Agency believes the watershed approach-an approach that integrates many aspects in the management of water quality-is the best road to take. The projects to be initiated in these 14 watersheds will be among the first to document their successes to show that this ecosystems approach is the way to go to address water quality issues.

Can you give an example of how the Targeted Watersheds Grant Program incorporates this watershed approach?

Both the watershed approach and the Targeted Watersheds Grant Program focus on multi-faceted plans for protecting and restoring water resources. For example, a number of the selected projects address agricultural pollution-specifically nutrient loading; some address urban and industrial runoff; some address streambank or wetland restoration for sediment control which benefits wildlife and endangered and/or threatened species; and some of the selected organizations have projects aimed at changing homeowner habits. Moreover, several projects will incorporate a more innovative, market-based approach to attaining water quality. These watershed organizations will also test possibilities such as pollutant trading and other innovative socio-economic strategies.

What are the goals of the Program this year? Do the goals and objectives change from year-to-year?

The fundamental premise of the Targeted Watersheds Grant Program is that strong partnerships lead to measurable environmental results. Hence, the continuing goal of this Program is to build on the successes of strong public/private partnerships who have been working hard to improve the state of their waterways. This Program focuses on achieving incremental yet tangible on-the-ground results in a relatively short time period. Applicants are required to set clearly articulated goals and objectives that include strong monitoring components. Watershed plans and project proposals were judged on criteria such as: 1) Innovation, 2) Environmental Results, 3) Broad Support, 4) Outreach and 5) Financial Integrity. The goals remain the same, however, each year the Agency will have a particular emphasis to attract certain types of projects. For example, this year a programmatic emphasis was placed on proposals that incorporate market-based approaches, or relate to nutrient loading of the Mississippi River basin and the hypoxia situation in the Gulf of Mexico.

What do you mean by "market-based" approaches? Is this the same thing as trading?

This kind of approach uses social and economic incentives to implement creative pollution reduction strategies, emerging technologies, and watershed protection measures. Properly designed programs can improve water quality at substantially lower costs and provide incentives for voluntary reductions from all sources, point and nonpoint.
Water quality trading is one type of market-based approach. Trading offers flexibility and efficiency in achieving water quality goals on a watershed basis. Trading allows a source with relatively higher pollution control costs to meet a water quality goal or requirement by using pollution reduction credits created by another source with lower costs. This strategy enables sources in the same watershed to work together to meet a common goal.
Market-based approaches have tremendous potential to instigate change. Trading programs and other market-based approaches can be powerful tools to encourage innovative pollution control technologies and land management practices. More information on EPA's trading policy can be found at http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/trading/.

Why is Gulf hypoxia so important?

By far, the largest watershed within the United States is the Mississippi River Basin. On the Gulf's Texas-Louisiana continental shelf, an area of hypoxia (oxygen deficient) forms and is virtually devoid of marine life. The hypoxia is caused by excessive nutrients from farms throughout the Mississippi River Basin. The hypoxia area in the Gulf has been growing significantly over the years and, at 7,000 square miles, it is double the size it was in 1993.
From a national perspective, the nutrient enrichment and resultant hypoxic condition in the Gulf of Mexico is significant in terms of its sheer size, persistence, and location. However, the concern about coastal eutrophication is not limited to the inner shelf off Louisiana. In 1990, it was estimated that nearly half of the nation's estuaries were susceptible to eutrophication. EPA envisions that results from the selected watersheds within the Mississippi River basin will enhance knowledge and understanding of hypoxia and that successful nutrient reduction approaches related to the causes of hypoxia can be adapted to other bays and estuaries along our coasts.

Is the Targeted Watersheds Grant Program a short-lived program or will it become an annual grant program?

EPA knows we can achieve some real environmental changes with this program and fortunately the President agrees. In a recent speech, the President emphasized that "through policies and programs that recognize regional differences and empower individuals to be good stewards of the earth, we can and will meet the environmental challenges of the future." He has included a 66% increase (from $15 to $25 million) in next year's budget for the Program. The Agency hopes that with two successful years under our belt, the Targeted Watersheds Grant program is here to stay.

Once my watershed is selected, will it continue to get funding in years to come?

Because EPA wants to enlist as many watersheds into the program as possible, grants awarded will be one-time awards. The Agency wants to spread the dollars as far as it can to reap water quality benefits in more and more places across the country. There are many worthy watersheds out there that could use federal assistance, and unfortunately we were only able to fund a very small percentage of them. The 14 watersheds selected today account for only 11% of the nominations submitted to us. EPA will be working with those watershed organizations that did not receive an award this year to improve their nominations and will encourage them to try again next year.

What's in store for next year?

The Agency plans to continue its focus on quick, measurable results; partnerships; innovation; and program compatibility. And we will continue emphasizing market-based approaches and socio-economic strategies. EPA is already preparing the 2005 solicitation. Next year's grants will include a number of nutrient reduction projects from the Chesapeake Bay. The "Call For Nominations" for the 2005 grants will be published this summer.

Top of page

Eligible Watershed Projects

What types of project is EPA looking for?

The 2004 Watershed Program will continue to build upon the Agency's watershed approach to water resources management. The Program will support studies of coalition-based strategies for activities, such as attaining water quality standards, protecting and restoring the natural and beneficial uses of floodplains, and, in general, improving water resources on a watershed level. EPA is especially looking for projects that engage market-based approaches to solving water quality issues and projects that address nutrient loading throughout the Mississippi River basin.
In general, EPA is looking for projects that are ready-to-go and have a wide array of public support. Projects must focus on being able to show measurable environmental results in a relatively short time frame of 3-5 years and quantifying their particular environmental parameter during the course of the project. The criteria that will be used to evaluate the nominations include: Innovation (10 points); Environmental Results (30 points); Broad Support (10 points); Outreach Program (5 points); and Financial Integrity (5 points).

What do you mean by "market-based" approaches?

Market-based approaches create social and economic incentives for the implementation of creative pollution reduction strategies, emerging technologies, and watershed protection measures. Properly designed programs can improve water quality at substantially lower costs and provide incentives for voluntary reductions from all sources, point and nonpoint. Utilizing a market-based approach creates a "win-win" situation for all parties.
One example is trading. Water quality trading is one important approach that offers flexibility and efficiency in achieving water quality goals on a watershed basis. Trading allows a source with relatively higher pollution control costs to meet a water quality goal or requirement by using pollution reduction credits created by another source with lower costs. This approach enables sources in the same watershed to work together to meet a common goal.

What types of projects qualify for funding and what types do not?

Under the Clean Water Act, EPA can only award grants to "conduct and promote the coordination and acceleration of, research, investigations, experiments, training, demonstrations, surveys, and studies relating to the causes, effects, extent, prevention, reduction, and elimination of [water] pollution." While, on the surface, this authority seems to be straightforward, in reality, interpreting this language and relating it to watershed protection and restoration activities is much more difficult.
Because our authority to award grants is limited to activities that basically advance the state of knowledge, gather information, or transfer information, EPA can not fund "implementation" projects per se. A project that entails the performance of routine, traditional, or established practices (i.e., is tried and true), or a project that is simply intended to carry out a task rather than transfer knowledge does not qualify.
Established practices, however, are not inherently unfundable and can qualify under our authority. EPA has made the determination that proposals submitted under the Targeted Watersheds Grant Program are best characterized as "studies" or, in some cases, "demonstrations" and activities involving the implementation of pollution control measures are eligible for funding only to the extent they are necessary to carry out the study or demonstration project(s).
This means that any activities proposed must have a "learning component." Established or routine activities can be viable parts of the proposal if they contribute to the learning about an environmental concept or problem. A proposal presented as a large-scale field trial study incorporates this line of reasoning. EPA is looking for watersheds with identified threats or impairments; a clearly articulated study approach to address these impairments; and a methodology for measuring and monitoring whether the proposed set of activities have impacted the water quality by hopefully decreasing or lessening the threats or impairments.

Are there any type of projects EPA is not looking for?

The Agency has decided that particular activities are not allowed under law, administration policy, or simply do not fit the goals or intentions of the Watershed Targeted Watersheds Grant Program and will not be considered for funding. These include:
  1. Proposals that directly support regulatory activities mandated under the Clean Water Act, such as, the development of TMDLs, Phase II Stormwater projects, the development of Water Quality Standards, etc. The Agency feels that since these actions are required by law, it would be inappropriate to subsidize the compliance for some and not for others. It is important to note, however, that proposals to study the effectiveness of implementing TMDLs are eligible.
  2. The construction of buildings or other major structures. The Agency believes that Targeted Watersheds Grant Program monies can be better used in other capacities.
  3. Substantial subgrants (also called pass-through grants). EPA believes that while nothing precludes the nominee from subgranting the work, many of the criteria in this Program, such as, the ability to achieve quick results and the requirement to substantiate environmental project management do not lend themselves to a completely subgranted proposal. Hence, proposals containing subgrant programs are allowed, but the subgrant portion must account for no more than 20% of the requested funding amount.
  4. Habitat restoration. Activities involving wildlife are eligible only to the extent they are conducted as part of the study or demonstration relating to water quality and water pollution. For example, while laudable, an activity to restore a bat habitat is ineligible unless the activity is somehow an integral part of the overall proposal to improve water quality.
  5. Lobbying, fund-raising, or political activities. For example, funds may be used to assist in the technical development of a local ordinance but may not be used to influence the voting of the local board authorities or to otherwise attain the passage of the ordinance.

Top of page

Getting Nominated

How do I know if I qualify?

Under EPA's current authority, anyone (group or individual) that is not a commercial enterprise is eligible to receive a Targeted Watershed Grant. Businesses and for-profit entities, however, may be, and are strongly encouraged to be, active partners in the watershed effort.

Who can submit a nomination?

Watershed nominations must be submitted by either a Governor or a Tribal Leader (or Tribal Official).

How can I get my Governor (or Tribal Leader) to nominate me?

Governors (or Tribal Leaders) may nominate only up to two watersheds that are wholly within their state (or tribe), so EPA expects that competition for a Watershed Program grant will be strong. EPA, therefore, encourages any watershed group that wishes to be nominated (and meets the specified criteria) notify its State Governor's or Water Quality Office as soon as possible to learn how their State will be selecting watersheds to nominate.

How will the nominations be made?

EPA is leaving it up to the individual States and Tribes to determine the best process for selecting watersheds to nominate.

Is there a limit on how many watersheds a Governor or Tribal Leader can nominate?

Each Governor or Tribal Leader is invited to nominate two intra-state or intra-tribal watersheds.
There is no limit on the number of inter-state or joint state/tribal watersheds that can be nominated. Any of the affected State Governors/Tribal Leaders may submit the nomination. To be considered a inter-state or joint state/tribal watershed projects, the nomination must have the endorsement of all affected governmental entities. For example, a joint nomination can be endorsed by another Governor, Tribal leader, State water commissioner, State Water Quality director, Environmental director, or similar positions within the State or Tribal governments.

Does a submission require a State Dept. of Natural Resources (or other relevant state department) endorsement along with the Governor's nomination?

While a State partnership is not required, the absence of any active participation at the State level would be noted in the scoring process. A broad range of partnerships at all public and private levels is encouraged.

Does the nomination have to be prepared by the State, or can a local government or Non-governmental organization (NGO) write the nomination?

The information and materials to be included in the nomination can be prepared by the State or anyone else familiar with the projects. Since a State Agency is also eligible to receive a grant under this Program, it could be the nominee. In this case the State would be the entity preparing the nomination materials. In addition, the actual submission of the nomination package does not necessarily have to come directly from the Governor's office. What is important, however, is that the original, signed letter from the Governor nominating the watershed be included in the nomination package.

Can the Governor indicate to EPA his/her preference among the nominations?

While a Governor may prefer one nomination over another, this information would not enter into EPA's evaluation and ranking of the nomination. The Agency will not give points to a nomination because a Governor rated it higher than the others. At both the regional and national review level, nominations will be evaluated solely on their adherence to the criteria provided in the solicitation.

What if my watershed crosses into an adjoining state, do I need to be nominated by both Governors?

Because this Program focuses on promoting broad partnerships, cooperative efforts that cross jurisdictional boundaries are encouraged. To provide an incentive, such projects (also called "joint" projects) will not be counted toward each state's (or tribe's) limit of 2 nominations.
The Agency realizes that obtaining one Governor's (or Tribal Leader's) nomination will be difficult enough and the burden of obtaining the nomination of another Governor will most likely be prohibitive. Therefore, for inter-state or joint state/tribal watersheds, only one Governor or Tribal Leader needs to submit the nomination. However, all joint nominations must have the endorsement of all affected states/tribes. Accompanying endorsements should come from the State Agency that is an active partner in the watershed effort, e.g., active partners could include the State's Water Quality Office, the Environment and Natural Resources Office, the Pesticide Office, the Office of Public Health or other applicable state agencies.
If your watersheds crosses into another state but does not have that state's endorsement, it is still eligible for a grant under this program. For example, there may be a university or other non-government entity located in the adjoining state that will be working on the project. In this scenario, the nomination would not be considered a joint nomination and would count as one of the two intra-state nominations. It would however, receive a higher score when rated for active partnerships.

Would my interstate nomination score higher if nominated by each Governor rather than by one Governor?

Not necessarily. EPA is looking for active participation by the adjoining state. A letter from the Governor alone may or may not convince us that the neighboring state is truly engaged.

What if my watershed encompasses tribal or federal lands? Or even crosses over into another country?

Multi-jurisdictional watershed proposals that cross inter-governmental boundaries are certainly encouraged. As with intra-state or joint nominations, the affected tribes, federal agencies (e.g., the U.S. Forest Service or Department of the Interior), or international governments (i.e., Canada or Mexico) must be active partners in any watershed effort and official endorsements accompanying the Governor's nomination are required.
Please note, however, in a deviation from last year, a multi-jurisdictional nomination that is not a state/state, state/tribe or tribe/tribe will not be considered a joint nomination for the purpose of exceeding the 2 nomination per State/Tribe limit.

Are last year's grantees eligible this year?

For the most part, grants awarded will be one-time awards, and grant recipients should use the funds within 2-3 years. However, the Agency will not prohibit a watershed organization from requesting more grant funds. Additional funding for the same watershed would require the recipient to recompete in subsequent years once it has exhausted its initial funding. In addition, a proposal for work beyond the initial funding period will not receive preferential consideration based on the applicant's previous award.

Top of page

Match Requirement

Is there a match requirement?

Yes, a minimum non-federal match of 25% of the total cost of the project is required. The match may be in the form of cash or in-kind services. Monies from other federal sources, unless specified by law, may not count toward the match.

Regarding the 25% match requirement, is that 25% of the requested amount, or 25% of the requested amount + match?

In the Federal Register, EPA states that the match must cover 25% of the total cost of the project(s). This means that EPA will support 75% of the project. The purpose of the match is to increase the overall scope of the project(s). For example, a $1.3M grant will be used to support a $1.73M proposal. Another way of looking at this is if the nominee requests a $1M grant, it must be able to provide up $0.33M in matching funds or services (here, the cost of the project(s) would be $1.33M).

Will a higher match get higher points?

In general, yes, however, there will be no automatic 5 bonus points for overmatch as there was last year. In awarding points, EPA reviewers will be looking at the source(s) of the match, the commitment level, and the breadth of financial support to the project.

Can the State provide some of the in-kind match?

Yes, all or part of the match can come from the State. It can in the form of cash or in-kind services.

Can the match be outside the scope of the project(s) or does it have to be related?

The matching funds have to be directly related to the project(s) proposed for funding.

How do I "certify" my match?

The procedures relating to match certification are standard for all EPA grants. In general, the nominee should verify that a match is committed by appending letters from the party (on its own letterhead) that is supplying the match and the amount of the commitment.

Regarding in-kind services, can services from activities that are on-going or have been completed count toward the match requirement?

The value of the in-kind services must be an estimate of future services that will utilized in implementing the project. Services that have already occurred can be helpful in determining what the estimate should be but cannot count toward the 25% match requirement.

The Federal Register notice states that federal funds cannot be used toward the match unless authorized by the statute governing their use. What does this mean?

This means that funds obtained via another federal grant for work within your watershed cannot be factored into the 25% match calculation. These funds can certainly be used to support or supplement the work being done, but cannot be considered "matching funds."
There are some federal statutes, however, that allow awarded funds to be used as matching dollars. (The Clean Water Act is not one of them.) For example, P.L. 638, administered through the Bureau of Indian Affairs specifically states that federal tribal money disbursed under the statute can be used for matching purposes. If a nominee wishes to use federal funds as part of the match requirement, it is incumbent upon them to provide the citation in the law that allows them to do so.

Top of page

Putting Together Your Nomination Package

What kind of materials do I need to submit to be nominated?

To be considered EPA requires that each nomination forwarded from a state or tribe contain a set of common elements. Each nomination package submitted to EPA must contain the following. Please see the Call for Nominations for specified page limits and precise formatting requirements.
  1. A one-page cover letter signed by the Governor or Tribal Leader.
  2. A title page containing the name of the watershed along with the 8-digit HUC code, nominee contact information, and if warranted, whether the nomination addresses hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico.
  3. A 150-word abstract.
  4. A workplan describing the watershed and watershed planning efforts, details of the proposed projects, expertise of those managing the projects, and outreach activities.
  5. Budget form reflecting a detailed breakdown of cost by category for each project.
  6. Signed letter(s) from active partners indicating their commitment to implementing the watershed plan and specific proposed projects.
  7. Signed letter(s) from individuals or businesses committing to provide all or some of the match and the amount or in-kind service they are committing to the project.
  8. For inter-jurisdictional or joint nominations, signed letter(s) expressing the support of the other participating governmental entities.
  9. Maps and supplementary technical information are optional.

My organization has done a lot of work so far. Can we include other materials, such as watershed assessments, tables or graphs, pictures of outreach campaigns, etc. as appendices?

Because of the volume of material the Agency receives and to maintain an equitable and level playing field for everyone, appended materials other than those specified in the Federal Register solicitation will not be considered.

Last year EPA required that the complete nomination be submitted electronically. This was very difficult to do and resulted in our computer crashing numerous times. Any chance EPA modified this requirement this year?

EPA had a similar experience with the bulk of the electronic submissions. Because the Agency required items to be scanned and sent as .pdf or acrobat files, we overloaded the system with these often large files. We did discover, however, that having the information electronically proved helpful for many reasons. As a result, this year we are only requiring the electronic submission of the text portions of the nomination package-that is, only the title page, abstract, workplan, and budget form. Please do not send maps, pictures, or scanned letters to the electronic mailbox because they will create an array of computer problems. Also note that the subject line for your submission must be in the format of "STATE - Watershed Name" (e.g., MD - Rock Creek).

How quickly do I have to assemble my materials? What is the submission deadline?

Governors and Tribal leaders must submit their nominations to EPA no later than January 15, 2004. This means, however, that applicants must submit their materials to the State or Tribe earlier. Please contact your State's Governor's or Water Quality Office to ascertain when and where you should send your nomination materials.

Are there any forms required?

Grant application forms are not required at this stage of the process. Only those watersheds that are selected will need to submit the proper forms (e.g., Application for Federal Assistance, Standard Form 424 et al). Selected watersheds and watershed organizations will have 60 days following the announcement to submit all the necessary grant application forms.

What happens after January 15? When will the final decision be made?

The process by which the Agency will review and evaluate the nominations is identical to last year. Once received, the nominations will be reviewed by Panels at the regional level and the national level. Each EPA Regional Administrator can forward 4 nominations from his/her region to the National Panel. These "semi-finalists" will then be evaluated and ranked by a National Panel and the Panel's recommendations will be forwarded to the Administrator for final selection.
Barring any unforseen delays, EPA expects to announce selections in Summer 2004 and complete the grant award process, including grant negotiations through the appropriate Regional Office early September 2004. Projects should be underway by this fall.

Top of page

Water | Wetlands, Oceans & Watersheds

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.