Guidelines for Awarding Clean Water Act Section 319 Base Grants to Indian Tribes in FY 2006; Request for Proposals From Indian Tribes for Competitive Grants Under Clean Water Act Section 319 in FY 2006 (CFDA 66.460-Nonpoint Source Implementation Grants; Funding Opportunity Number EPA-OW-OWOW-06-2), 2531-2543 [E6-408]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Notices
Dated: January 6, 2006.
Eric McDonald,
Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate
General’s Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register
Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. E6–375 Filed 1–13–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810–FF–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL–8021–9]
Access to Confidential Business
Information by Enrollees Under the
Senior Environmental Employment
Program
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
sroberts on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
Cooperative Agreement No.
SUMMARY: EPA has authorized grantee
organizations under the Senior
Environmental Employment (SEE)
Program, and their enrollees; access to
information which has been submitted
to EPA under the environmental statutes
administered by the Agency. Some of
this information may be claimed or
determined to be confidential business
information (CBI).
DATES: Comments concerning CBI
access will be accepted on or before
January 23, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be
submitted to: Susan Street, National
Program Director, Senior Environmental
Employment Program (MC 3650A), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; Ariel
Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Susan Street at (202) 564–0410.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Senior Environmental Employment
(SEE) program is authorized by the
Environmental Programs Assistance Act
of 1984 (Pub. L. 98–313), which
provides that the Administrator may
‘‘make grants or enter into cooperative
agreements’’ for the purpose of
‘‘providing technical assistance to:
Federal, State, and local environmental
agencies for projects of pollution
prevention, abatement, and control.’’
Cooperative agreements under the SEE
program provide support for many
functions in the Agency, including
clerical support, staffing hot lines,
providing support to Agency
enforcement activities, providing library
services, compiling data, and support in
scientific, engineering, financial, and
other areas.
In performing these tasks, grantees
and cooperators under the SEE program
and their enrollees may have access to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:57 Jan 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
potentially all documents submitted
under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, Clean Air Act, Clean
Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act,
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act, and Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, to the
extent that these statutes allow
disclosure of confidential information to
authorized representatives of the United
States (or to ‘‘contractors’’ under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act). Some of these
documents may contain information
claimed as confidential.
EPA provides confidential
information to enrollees working under
the following cooperative agreements:
Organization
National Association for Hispanic Elderly
CQ–832815 .............................
CQ–832816 .............................
CQ–832820 .............................
NAHE
NAHE
NAHE
National Asian Pacific Center on Aging
National Caucus and Center on Black
Aged, Inc.
CQ–832550
CQ–832790
CQ–832791
CQ–832792
CQ–832793
CQ–832794
CQ–832795
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
NCBA
NCBA
NCBA
NCBA
NCBA
NCBA
NCBA
National Council on the Aging, Inc.
CQ–832227 .............................
CQ–832396 .............................
CQ–832718 .............................
NCOA
NCOA
NCOA
National Older Workers Career Center
CQ–830918
CQ–830969
CQ–831021
CQ–831022
CQ–831023
CQ–832729
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
NOWCC
NOWCC
NOWCC
NOWCC
NOWCC
NOWCC
Senior Service America, Inc.
CQ–832396
CQ–832427
CQ–832625
CQ–832626
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
SSAI
SSAI
SSAI
SSAI
Among the procedures established by
EPA confidentiality regulations for
granting access is notification to the
submitters of confidential data that SEE
grantee organizations and their enrollees
will have access. 40 CFR 2.201(h)(2)(iii).
This document is intended to fulfill that
requirement.
The grantee organizations are required
by the cooperative agreements to protect
confidential information. SEE enrollees
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2531
are required to sign confidentiality
agreements and to adhere to the same
security procedures as Federal
employees.
Dated: December 22, 2005.
Susan Street,
SEE Program Manager, Customer Services
Support Center (3661A).
[FR Doc. E6–403 Filed 1–13–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL–8021–6]
Guidelines for Awarding Clean Water
Act Section 319 Base Grants to Indian
Tribes in FY 2006; Request for
Proposals From Indian Tribes for
Competitive Grants Under Clean Water
Act Section 319 in FY 2006 (CFDA
66.460—Nonpoint Source
Implementation Grants; Funding
Opportunity Number EPA–OW–
OWOW–06–2)
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of guidelines for Section
319 Base Grants and Request for
Proposals for Section 319 Competitive
Grants.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This notice publishes EPA’s
national guidelines for the award of base
grants and EPA’s Request for Proposals
(RFP) for the award of supplemental
funding in the form of competitive
grants under the Clean Water Act (CWA)
section 319(h) nonpoint source (NPS)
grants program to Indian Tribes in FY
2006. Section 319 of the CWA
authorizes EPA to award grants to
eligible Tribes for the purpose of
assisting them in implementing
approved NPS management programs
developed pursuant to section 319(b).
The primary goal of the NPS
management program is to control NPS
pollution through implementation of
management measures and practices to
reduce pollutant loadings resulting from
each category or subcategory of NPSs
identified in the Tribe’s NPS assessment
report developed pursuant to section
319(a). EPA intends to award a total of
$7,000,000 to eligible Tribes which have
approved NPS assessments and
management programs and ‘‘treatmentas-a-state’’ (TAS) status as of October 14,
2005. EPA expects the allocation of
funds will be similar to the amount
distributed in FY 2005, which included
approximately $2.8 million in base
grants awarded to 84 Tribes and $4.2
million awarded to 31 Tribes through a
competitive process. Section A includes
E:\FR\FM\17JAN1.SGM
17JAN1
2532
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Notices
EPA’s national guidelines which govern
the process for awarding base grants to
all eligible Tribes, and section B is the
national RFP for awarding the
remaining funds on a competitive basis.
DATES: This notice is effective January
17, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stacie Craddock, Office of Wetlands,
Oceans, and Watersheds, Assessment
and Watershed Protection Division,
telephone: (202) 566–1204; fax: (202)
566–1331, e-mail:
craddock.stacie@epa.gov. Also contact
the appropriate EPA Regional Tribal
NPS Coordinator identified in section
B.VII.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
sroberts on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES
Background
For the seventh year in a row,
Congress has authorized EPA to award
NPS control grants to Indian Tribes in
FY 2006 in an amount that exceeds the
statutory cap (in section 518(f) of the
CWA) of 1⁄3 of 1 percent of the total
section 319 appropriation. There is
continuing recognition that Indian
Tribes need increased financial support
to implement NPS programs that
address critical water quality concerns
on Tribal lands. EPA will continue to
work closely with the Tribes to assist
them in developing and implementing
effective Tribal NPS pollution programs.
EPA was pleased by the quality of the
Tribes’ work plans that formed the basis
of the grants awarded to Tribes in FY
2005, which included approximately
$2.8 million in base grants awarded to
84 Tribes and $4.2 million awarded to
31 Tribes for specific watershed projects
through a competitive process. We
believe that the FY 2005 grants were
directed towards high-priority activities
that will produce on-the-ground results
that provide improved water quality.
We look forward to working with Tribes
again in FY 2006 to implement
successful projects addressing the
extensive NPS control needs throughout
Indian country.
Guidelines for Awarding CWA Section
319 Base Grants to Indian Tribes in FY
2006 (See Section A Below)
Section 319 of the CWA authorizes
EPA to award grants to eligible Tribes
for the purpose of assisting them in
implementing approved NPS
management programs developed
pursuant to section 319(b). The primary
goal of the NPS management program is
to control NPS pollution through
implementation of management
measures and practices to reduce
pollutant loadings resulting from each
category or subcategory of NPSs
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:57 Jan 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
identified in the Tribe’s NPS assessment
report developed pursuant to section
319(a). EPA will award section 319 base
grants to eligible Tribes in the amount
of $30,000 or $50,000 (depending on
land area). Section 319 base funds may
be used for a range of activities that
implement the Tribe’s approved NPS
management program, including: Hiring
a program coordinator; conducting NPS
education programs; providing training
and authorized travel to attend training;
updating the NPS management program;
developing watershed-based plans; and
implementing, alone or in conjunction
with other agencies or other funding
sources, watershed-based plans and onthe-ground watershed projects.
Request for Proposals From Indian
Tribes for Competitive Grants Under
Clean Water Act Section 319 in FY 2006
(See Section B Below)
Overview Information:
This RFP is issued pursuant to section
319(h) of the CWA. Section 319 of the
CWA authorizes EPA to award grants to
eligible Tribes for the purpose of
assisting them in implementing
approved NPS management programs
developed pursuant to section 319(b).
The primary goal of the NPS
management program is to control NPS
pollution through implementation of
management measures and practices to
reduce pollutant loadings resulting from
each category or subcategory of NPSs
identified in the Tribe’s NPS assessment
report developed pursuant to section
319(a). EPA has set aside a portion of
section 319 funds appropriated by
Congress for competitive grant awards
to Tribes for the purpose of funding: (1)
The development of watershed-based
plans; and/or (2) the implementation of
watershed projects that implement a
watershed-based plan; and/or (3) the
implementation of other watershed
projects not implementing a watershedbased plan. Tribes are strongly
encouraged to submit proposals that
develop and/or implement watershedbased plans designed to protect
unimpaired waters and restore NPSimpaired waters. EPA believes that
watershed-based plans provide the best
means for preventing and resolving NPS
problems and threats. Watershed-based
plans provide a coordinating framework
for solving water quality problems by
providing a specific geographic focus,
integrating strong partnerships,
integrating strong science and data, and
coordinating priority setting and
integrated solutions. EPA anticipates
awarding approximately 30 competitive
grants, subject to availability of funds
and the quality of applications
submitted. Eligible Tribes may apply for
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
competitive funding by submitting a
proposal for up to a maximum budget of
$150,000 of federal section 319 funding
(plus the additional required match of
the total project cost).
Federal Agency Name: EPA.
Funding Opportunity Title: Tribal
Nonpoint Source Implementation
Grants.
Announcement Type: Request for
Proposals.
Funding Opportunity Number: EPA–
OW–OWOW–06–2.
Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance (CFDA) Number: 66.460.
Dates:
Date EPA uses to determine eligibility
to receive competitive 319 grants.
October 14, 2005.
Deadline for Tribes to submit
proposals to Region or electronically
through grants.gov. March 1, 2006.
Headquarters notifies Regions/Tribes
of selections for competitive 319 grants.
May 5, 2006.
Tribes submit final grant application
to Region for competitive 319 grants.
June 5, 2006.
Other than the date EPA will use to
determine eligibility to receive 319
grants, the dates above are the
anticipated dates for those actions.
Dated: January 9, 2006.
Benjamin H. Grumbles,
Assistant Administrator for Water.
Section A. Guidelines for Awarding
Clean Water Act Section 319 Base
Grants to Indian Tribes in FY 2006
I. General
Each eligible Tribe will receive base
funding in accordance with the
following land area scale:
Square miles (acres)
Base
amount
Less than 1,000 sq. mi. (less than
640,000 acres) ............................
Over 1,000 sq. mi. (over 640,000
acres) ..........................................
$30,000
50,000
The land area scale is the same as
used in previous years. EPA continues
to rely upon land area as the deciding
factor for allocation of funds because
NPS pollution is strongly related to land
use; thus land area is a reasonable factor
that generally is highly relevant to
identifying Tribes with the greatest
needs (recognizing that many Tribes
have needs that significantly exceed
available resources).
Section 319 base funds may be used
for a range of activities that implement
the Tribe’s approved NPS management
program, including: Hiring a program
coordinator; conducting NPS education
programs; providing training and
E:\FR\FM\17JAN1.SGM
17JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES
authorized travel to attend training;
updating the NPS management program;
developing watershed-based plans; and
implementing, alone or in conjunction
with other agencies or other funding
sources, watershed-based plans and onthe-ground watershed projects. In
general, base funding should not be
used for general assessment activities
(e.g., monitoring the general status of
reservation waters, which may be
supported with CWA section 106
funding). EPA encourages Tribes to use
section 319 funding, and explore the use
of other funding such as CWA section
106 funding, to support project-specific
water quality monitoring, data
management, data analysis, assessment
activities, and the development of
watershed-based plans.
II. Eligibility and Match Requirements
To be eligible for NPS base grants, a
Tribe must: (1) Be federally recognized;
(2) have an approved NPS assessment
report in accordance with CWA section
319(a); (3) have an approved NPS
management program in accordance
with CWA section 319(b); and (4) have
‘‘treatment-as-a-state’’ (TAS) status in
accordance with CWA section 518(e).
To be eligible for NPS grants in FY
2006, Tribes must meet these eligibility
requirements as of October 14, 2005 (as
announced in the FY 2005 guidelines on
December 22, 2004 at 69 FR 76733).
Tribes should contact their EPA
Regional Tribal NPS Coordinator for
further information about the eligibility
process (see section B.VII for Agency
contact information).
Section 319(h)(3) of the CWA requires
that the match for NPS grants is 40
percent of the total project cost. In
general, as required in 40 CFR 31.24, the
match requirement can be satisfied by
any of the following: Allowable costs
incurred by the grantee, subgrantee, or
a cost-type contractor, including those
allowable costs borne by non-federal
grants; by cash donations from nonfederal third parties; or by the value of
third party in-kind contributions.
EPA’s regulations also provide that
EPA may decrease the match
requirement to as low as ten percent if
the Tribe can demonstrate in writing to
the Regional Administrator that fiscal
circumstances within the Tribe or
within each Tribe that is a member of
the intertribal consortium are
constrained to such an extent that
fulfilling the match requirement would
impose undue hardship (see 40 CFR
35.635). In making grant awards to
Tribes that provide for a reduced match
requirement, Regions must include a
brief finding in the final award package
that the Tribe has demonstrated that it
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:57 Jan 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
does not have adequate funds to meet
the required match.
III. Application Requirements for Base
Allocation Grants
1. Address To Request Application
Package for Base Allocation Grants
Applicants may download individual
grant application forms, or
electronically request a paper
application package and an
accompanying computer CD of
information related to applicants/grant
recipients roles and responsibilities
from EPA’s Grants Web site by visiting:
https://www.epa.gov/ogd/grants/
how_to_apply.htm. Please note that only
the narrative work plan needs to be
included in the initial application. If
your application is approved, a
complete application package will need
to be submitted by June 5, 2006.
2. Content and Form of Application
Submission for Base Allocation Grants
Section 319 base funds may be used
for a range of activities that implement
the Tribe’s approved NPS management
program, including: Hiring a program
coordinator; conducting NPS education
programs; providing training and
authorized travel to attend training;
updating the NPS management program;
developing watershed-based plans; and
implementing, alone or in conjunction
with other agencies or other funding
sources, watershed-based plans and onthe-ground watershed projects.
The specific content and form of the
application for the award of section 319
base grants is as follows:
a. Narrative Work Plan
Tribes must submit a work plan to
receive base funding for FY 2006. All
work plans must be consistent with the
Tribe’s approved NPS management
program and conform to legal
requirements that are applicable to all
environmental program grants awarded
to Tribes (see 40 CFR 35.505 and
35.507) as well as the grant
requirements which specifically apply
to NPS management grants (see 40 CFR
35.638). As provided in 40 CFR 35.507,
40 CFR 35.515, and 40 CFR 35.638, all
work plans must include:
i. Description of each significant category
of NPS activity to be addressed;
ii. Work plan components;
iii. Work plan commitments for each work
plan component;
iv. Estimated funding amounts for each
work plan component;
v. Estimated work years for each work plan
component;
vi. Roles and responsibilities of the
recipient and EPA in carrying out the work
plan commitments; and
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2533
vii. Reporting schedule and a description
of the performance evaluation process that
will be used that accounts for: (a) A
discussion of accomplishments as measured
against work plan commitments; (b) a
discussion of the cumulative effectiveness of
the work performed under all work plan
components; (c) a discussion of existing and
potential problem areas; and (d) suggestions
for improvement, including, where feasible,
schedules for making improvements.
b. Work Plan To Develop a WatershedBased Plan
If a Tribe submits a work plan to
develop a watershed-based plan, it must
include a commitment to incorporate
the nine components of a watershedbased plan identified in section A.V.1
below.
c. Work Plan To Implement a
Watershed-Based Plan
If a Tribe submits a work plan to
implement a watershed-based plan, it
must be accompanied by a statement
that the Region finds that the watershedbased plan to be implemented includes
the nine components of a watershedbased plan identified in section A.V.1
below.
IV. Submission Dates and Times for
Initial Applications for Base Funding
Eligible Tribes must submit to the
appropriate EPA Regional Tribal NPS
Coordinator applications for base
funding by 5 p.m. local time on March
1, 2006 (see section B.VII for Agency
contact information). Each EPA Region
will review the proposed work plan for
base funding and, where appropriate,
recommend improvements to the plan
by March 15, 2006. The Tribe must
submit a final work plan by April 14,
2006. If a Tribe has not submitted an
approvable work plan for base funding
by April 14, its allocated amount will be
added to the competitive pool which
will be used to fund Tribal NPS
competitive grants (see section B).
V. Watershed-Based Plans
EPA strongly encourages Tribes to use
section 319 funding for the development
and/or implementation of watershedbased plans to protect unimpaired
waters and restore NPS-impaired
waters. EPA also encourages Tribes to
explore the use of other funding such as
CWA section 106 funding to support the
development of watershed-based plans.
EPA believes that watershed-based
plans provide the best means for
preventing and resolving NPS problems
and threats. Watershed-based plans
provide a coordinating framework for
solving water quality problems by
providing a specific geographic focus,
integrating strong partnerships,
E:\FR\FM\17JAN1.SGM
17JAN1
2534
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES
integrating strong science and data, and
coordinating priority setting and
integrated solutions. This section
outlines the specific information that
should be included in all watershedbased plans that are developed or
implemented using section 319 funding.
This information correlates with the
elements of a watershed-based plan
outlined in the NPS grants guidelines
for States (see FY 2004 Nonpoint Source
Program and Grants Guidelines for
States and Territories, available at
https://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/
cwact.html). One significant difference
from the State guidelines is that a
watershed-based plan for Tribes
provides for the integration of ‘‘water
quality-based goals’’ (see element (c)
below), whereas the State guidelines
call for specific estimates of load
reductions that are expected to be
achieved by implementing the plan.
EPA has incorporated this flexibility for
Tribes in recognition that not all Tribes
have yet developed water quality
standards and many Tribes may need
additional time and/or technical
assistance in order to develop more
sophisticated estimates of the NPS
pollutants that need to be addressed.
Where such information does exist, or is
later developed, EPA expects that it will
be incorporated as appropriate into the
watershed-based plan.
To the extent that information already
exists in other documents (e.g., NPS
assessment reports or NPS management
programs), the information may be
incorporated by reference into the
watershed-based plan. Thus, the Tribe
need not duplicate any existing process
or document that already provides
needed information.
1. Components of a Watershed-Based
Plan
a. An identification of the causes and
sources or groups of similar sources that
will need to be controlled to achieve the
goal identified in element (c) below.
Sources that need to be controlled
should be identified at the significant
subcategory level with estimates of the
extent to which they are present in the
watershed (e.g., X number of dairy cattle
feedlots needing upgrading, including a
rough estimate of the number of cattle
per facility; Y acres of row crops
needing improved nutrient management
or sediment control; or Z linear miles of
eroded streambank needing
remediation).
b. A description of the NPS
management measures that will need to
be implemented to achieve a water
quality-based goal described in element
(c) below, as well as to achieve other
watershed goals identified in the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:57 Jan 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
watershed-based plan, and an
identification (using a map or a
description) of the critical areas which
those measures will be needed to
implement the plan.
c. An estimate of the water qualitybased goals expected to be achieved by
implementing the measures described in
element (b) above. To the extent
possible, estimates should identify
specific water quality-based goals,
which may incorporate, for example:
Load reductions; water quality
standards for one or more pollutants/
uses; NPS total maximum daily load
allocations; measurable, in-stream
reductions in a pollutant; or
improvements in a parameter that
indicates stream health (e.g., increases
in fish or macroinvertebrate counts). If
information is not available to make
specific estimates, water quality-based
goals may include narrative descriptions
and best professional judgment based on
existing information.
d. An estimate of the amounts of
technical and financial assistance
needed, associated costs, and/or the
sources and authorities that will be
relied upon to implement the plan. As
sources of funding, Tribes should
consider other relevant Federal, State,
local and private funds that may be
available to assist in implementing the
plan.
e. An information and education
component that will be used to enhance
public understanding and encourage
early and continued participation in
selecting, designing, and implementing
the NPS management measures that will
be implemented.
f. A schedule for implementing the
NPS management measures identified in
this plan that is reasonably expeditious.
g. A description of interim,
measurable milestones for determining
whether NPS management measures or
other control actions are being
implemented.
h. A set of criteria that can be used to
determine whether the water qualitybased goals are being achieved over time
and substantial progress is being made
towards attaining water quality-based
goals and, if not, the criteria for
determining whether the watershedbased plan needs to be revised.
i. A monitoring component to
evaluate the effectiveness of the
implementation efforts over time,
measured against the criteria established
under element (h) above.
EPA recognizes the difficulty of
developing the information described
above with precision and, as these
guidelines reflect, believes that there
must be a balanced approach to address
this concern. On one hand, it is
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
absolutely critical that Tribes make, at
the subcategory level, a reasonable effort
to identify the significant sources;
identify the management measures that
will most effectively address those
sources; and broadly estimate the
expected water quality-based goals that
will be achieved. Without such
information to provide focus and
direction, it is much less likely that a
project that implements the plan can
efficiently and effectively address the
NPSs of water quality impairments. On
the other hand, EPA recognizes that
even with reasonable steps to obtain and
analyze relevant data, the available
information at the planning stage
(within reasonable time and cost
constraints) may be limited; preliminary
information and estimates may need to
be modified over time, accompanied by
mid-course corrections in the watershed
plan; and it often will require a number
of years of effective implementation to
achieve the goals. EPA fully intends that
the watershed planning process
described above should be implemented
in a dynamic and iterative manner to
assure that projects implementing the
plan may proceed even though some of
the information in the watershed plan is
imperfect and may need to be modified
over time as information improves.
2. Scale and Scope of Watershed-Based
Plans
The watershed-based plan should
address a large enough geographic area
so that its implementation addresses all
of the significant sources and causes of
impairments and threats to the
waterbody in question. EPA recognizes
that many Tribes may face jurisdictional
limitations outside reservation
boundaries. To the extent possible, EPA
encourages Tribes to engage other
partners and include mixed ownership
watersheds when appropriate to solve
the water quality problems (e.g., Tribal,
Federal, State, and private lands). While
there is no rigorous definition or
delineation for this concept, the general
intent is to avoid single segments or
other narrowly defined areas that do not
provide an opportunity for addressing a
watershed’s stressors in a rational and
economic manner. At the same time, the
scale should not be so large as to
minimize the probability of successful
implementation.
Once a watershed-based plan that
contains the information identified
above has been established, it can be
used as the foundation for preparing
annual work plans. Like the NPS
management program approved under
section 319(b), a watershed-based plan
may be a multi-year planning document.
Whereas the NPS management program
E:\FR\FM\17JAN1.SGM
17JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Notices
provides overall program guidance to
address NPS pollution on Tribal lands,
a watershed-based plan focuses NPS
planning on a particular watershed
identified as a priority in the NPS
management program. Due to the greater
specificity of a watershed-based plan, it
will generally have considerably more
detail than a NPS management program,
and identified portions may be
implemented through highly specific
annual work plans. While the
watershed-based plan can be considered
a subset of the NPS management
program, the annual work plan can be
considered a subset of the watershedbased plan.
A Tribe may choose to implement the
watershed-based plan in prioritized
portions (e.g., based on particular
segments, other geographic
subdivisions, NPS categories in the
watershed, or specific pollutants or
impairments), consistent with the
schedule established pursuant to item
(f) above. In doing so, Tribes may
submit annual work plans for section
319 grant funding that implement
specific portions of the watershed-based
plan. A watershed-based plan is a
strategic plan for long-term success;
annual work plans are the specific ‘‘todo lists’’ to achieve that long-term
success.
VI. Base Grant Requirements
sroberts on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES
1. Performance Partnership Grants
Performance Partnership Grants (PPG)
enable Tribes to combine funds from
more than one environmental program
grant into a single grant with a single
budget. If the Tribe includes the section
319 grant as a part of an approved PPG,
the match requirement may be reduced
to 5 percent of the allowable cost of the
work plan budget for the first 2 years in
which the Tribe receives a PPG; after 2
years, the match may be increased up to
10 percent of the work plan budget (as
determined by the Regional
Administrator). (See 40 CFR 35.536).
A section 319 base grant awarded
under this notice should not be
included in a PPG unless the work plan
upon which a decision is made to award
the grant is included in the PPG. If a
proposed PPG work plan differs
significantly from the section 319 work
plan approved for funding, the Regional
Administrator must consult with the
National Program Manager. (See 40 CFR
35.535). The purpose of this
requirement is to avoid any potential
that the project will not ultimately be
implemented once commingled with
other grant programs in a PPG.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:57 Jan 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
2. Intertribal Consortia
Some Tribes have formed intertribal
consortia to promote cooperative work.
An intertribal consortium is a
partnership between two or more Tribes
that is authorized by the governing
bodies of those Tribes to apply for and
receive assistance under this program.
(See 40 CFR 35.502.) Individual Tribes
who are a part of an intertribal consortia
that is awarded a section 319 base grant
may not also be awarded an individual
section 319 base grant. (Note that
individual Tribes may still be eligible to
apply for competitive funds described
below in Section B if they do not also
submit a proposal for competitive funds
as part of an intertribal consortium.) The
intertribal consortium is eligible only if
the consortium demonstrates that all its
members meet the eligibility
requirements for the section 319
program and authorize the consortium
to apply for and receive assistance in
accordance with 40 CFR 35.504. An
intertribal consortium must submit to
EPA adequate documentation of the
existence of the partnership and the
authorization of the consortium by its
members to apply for and receive the
grant. (See 40 CFR 35.504.)
3. Non-Tribal Lands
The following discussion explains the
extent to which section 319 grants may
be awarded to Tribes for use outside the
reservation. We discuss two types of offreservation activities: (1) Activities that
are related to waters within a
reservation, such as those relating to
sources upstream of a waterway
entering the reservation; and (2)
activities that are unrelated to waters of
a reservation. As discussed below, the
first type of these activities may be
eligible; the second is not.
a. Activities That Are Related to Waters
Within a Reservation
Section 518(e) of the CWA provides
that EPA may treat an Indian Tribe as
a State for purposes of section 319 of the
CWA if, among other things, ‘‘the
functions to be exercised by the Indian
Tribe pertain to the management and
protection of water resources which are
* * * within the borders of an Indian
reservation’’ (see 33 U.S.C. 1377(e)(2)).
EPA already awards grants to Tribes
under section 106 of the CWA for
activities performed outside of a
reservation (on condition that the Tribe
obtains any necessary access agreements
and coordinates with the State, as
appropriate) that pertain to reservation
waters, such as evaluating impacts of
upstream waters on water resources
within a reservation. Similarly, EPA has
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2535
awarded section 106 grants to States to
conduct monitoring outside of State
borders. EPA has concluded that grants
awarded to an Indian Tribe pursuant to
section 319 may similarly be used to
perform eligible section 319 activities
outside of a reservation if: (1) The
activity pertains to the management and
protection of waters within a
reservation; and (2) just as for onreservation activities, the Tribe meets all
other applicable requirements.
b. Activities That Are Unrelated to
Waters of a Reservation
As discussed above, EPA is
authorized to award section 319 grants
to Tribes to perform eligible section 319
activities if the activities pertain to the
management and protection of waters
within a reservation and the Tribe meets
all other applicable requirements. In
contrast, EPA is not authorized to award
section 319 grants for activities that do
not pertain to waters of a reservation.
For off-reservation areas, including
‘‘usual and accustomed’’ hunting,
fishing, and gathering places, EPA must
determine whether the activities pertain
to waters of a reservation prior to
awarding a grant.
4. Administrative Costs
Pursuant to CWA section 319(h)(12),
administrative costs in the form of
salaries, overhead, or indirect costs for
services provided and charged against
activities and programs carried out with
the grant shall not exceed 10 percent of
the grant award. The costs of
implementing enforcement and
regulatory activities, education, training,
technical assistance, demonstration
projects, and technology transfer are not
subject to this limitation.
5. Satisfactory Progress
For a Tribe (or intertribal consortium)
that received section 319 funds in the
preceding fiscal year, section 319(h)(8)
of the CWA requires that the Region
determine whether the Tribe made
‘‘satisfactory progress’’ during the
previous fiscal year in meeting the
schedule of activities specified in its
approved NPS management program.
The Region will base this determination
on an examination of Tribal activities,
reports, reviews, and other documents
and discussions with the Tribe in the
previous year. Regions must include in
each section 319 base funding allocation
(or in a separate document, such as the
grant-issuance cover letter, that is
signed by the same EPA official who
signs the grant), a written determination
that the Tribe has made satisfactory
progress during the previous fiscal year
in meeting the schedule of milestones
E:\FR\FM\17JAN1.SGM
17JAN1
2536
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Notices
specified in its NPS management
program. The Regions must include
brief explanations that support their
determinations.
VII. Technical Assistance to Tribes
In addition to providing NPS grant
funding to Tribes, EPA remains
committed to providing continued
technical assistance to Tribes in their
efforts to control NPS pollution. During
the past nine years, EPA has presented
many workshops to Tribes nationwide
to assist them in developing: (1) NPS
assessments to further their
understanding of NPS pollution and its
impact on water quality; (2) NPS
management programs to apply
solutions to address their NPS
problems; and (3) specific projects to
effect on-the-ground solutions. The
workshops have provided information
on related EPA and other programs that
can help Tribes address NPSs, including
the provision of technical and funding
assistance. Other areas of technical
assistance include watershed-based
planning, water quality monitoring,
section 305(b) reports on water quality,
and section 303(d) lists of impaired
waters. EPA intends to continue
providing NPS workshops to interested
Tribes in FY 2006 and to provide other
appropriate technical assistance as
needed. EPA also intends to include
special emphasis in the workshops on
the development and implementation of
watershed-based plans that are designed
to address on-the-ground water quality
improvements.
sroberts on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES
VIII. Anticipated Deadlines and
Milestones for FY 2006 Base Grants
Date for Tribes to be eligible for 319
grants. October 14, 2005.
Tribes submit base grant initial
application to Region. March 1, 2006
(anticipated).
Region comments on Tribe’s base
grant work plan. March 15, 2006
(anticipated).
Tribes submit final base grant work
plan to Region. April 14, 2006
(anticipated).
Tribes submit final grant application
to Region. June 5, 2006 (anticipated).
Other than the date EPA will use to
determine eligibility to receive 319
grants, the dates above are the
anticipated dates for those actions.
IX. Anticipated Deadlines and
Milestones for FY 2007 Base Grants
Beginning in FY 2007, the schedule
for submitting work plans and awarding
section 319 base grants will be modified
to expedite the grant awards process.
These modifications are intended to
ensure that award decisions are made
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:57 Jan 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
earlier in the fiscal year to provide
adequate time for Tribes to implement
projects within the applicable fiscal
year.
Date for Tribes to be eligible for 319
grants. October 13, 2006.
Tribes submit base grant initial
application to Region. December 1, 2006
(anticipated).
Region comments on Tribe’s base
grant work plan. December 15, 2006
(anticipated).
Tribes submit final base grant work
plan to Region. January 16, 2007
(anticipated).
Tribes submit final grant application
to Region. April 5, 2007 (anticipated).
Other than the date EPA will use to
determine eligibility to receive 319
grants, the dates above are the
anticipated dates for those actions.
Section B. Request for Proposals From
Indian Tribes for Competitive Grants
under Clean Water Act Section 319 in
FY 2006 (Funding Opportunity Number
EPA–OW–OWOW–06–2)
I. Funding Opportunity Description for
Competitive Grants
This RFP is issued pursuant to section
319(h) of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
Section 319 of the CWA authorizes EPA
to award grants to eligible Tribes for the
purpose of assisting them in
implementing approved nonpoint
source (NPS) management programs
developed pursuant to section 319(b).
The primary goal of the NPS
management program is to control NPS
pollution through implementation of
management measures and practices to
reduce pollutant loadings resulting from
each category or subcategory of NPSs
identified in the Tribe’s NPS assessment
report developed pursuant to section
319(a). EPA has set aside a portion of
the section 319 funds appropriated by
Congress for competitive grant awards
to Tribes for the purpose of funding: (1)
The development of watershed-based
plans; and/or (2) the implementation of
watershed projects that implement a
watershed-based plan; and/or (3) the
implementation of other watershed
projects not implementing a watershedbased plan. Tribes are strongly
encouraged to submit proposals that
develop and/or implement watershedbased plans designed to protect
unimpaired waters and restore NPSimpaired waters.
Grants awarded under this RFP will
advance the protection and
improvement of water quality in
support of Goal 2 (Clean and Safe
Water), Objective 2 (Protect Water
Quality), Sub-objective 1 (Protect and
Improve Water Quality on a Watershed
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Basis) of EPA’s Strategic Plan (see
https://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/
plan.htm). In support of Sub-objective
2.2.1, and consistent with EPA Order
5700.7 on Environmental Results under
EPA Assistance Agreements (see https://
www.epa.gov/ogd/grants/award/
5700.7.pdf), grants awarded under this
RFP will be expected to accomplish
various environmental outcomes and
outputs as described below. Applicants
must discuss anticipated environmental
outcomes and outputs in proposed work
plan objectives and performance
measures.
Expected environmental outcomes
mean the result, effect, or consequence
that will occur from carrying out an
environmental program or activity that
is related to an environmental or
programmatic goal or objective.
Outcomes may be environmental,
behavioral, health-related or
programmatic in nature, must be
quantitative, and may not necessarily be
achieved within an assistance
agreement funding period. Examples of
outcomes from the grants to be awarded
under this RFP may include but are not
limited to: an increased number of NPSimpaired waterbodies that have been
partially or fully restored to meet water
quality standards or other water qualitybased goals established by the Tribes;
and/or an increased number of
waterbodies that have been protected
from NPS pollution.
Expected environmental outputs (or
deliverables) refer to an environmental
activity, effort, and/or associated work
product related to an environmental
goal or objective, that will be produced
or provided over a period of time or by
a specified date. Outputs may be
quantitative or qualitative but must be
measurable during an assistance
agreement funding period. Examples of
environmental outputs under the grants
awarded under this RFP may include
but are not limited to: a watershedbased plan, progress reports, or a
particular number of on-the-ground
management measures or practices
installed or implemented during the
project period. Including the
environmental output of a watershedbased plan furthers progress towards
achieving the specific indicator measure
for Sub-objective 2.2.1 in EPA’s
Strategic Plan which measures the
number of Tribes that have developed
and begun to implement a watershedbased plan for Tribal waters (see
Measure WQ–28, EPA’s National Water
Program Guidance for FY 2006 at
https://www.epa.gov/water/waterplan/
#nwp06).
E:\FR\FM\17JAN1.SGM
17JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Notices
II. Award Information
In FY 2005, EPA awarded
approximately $4.2 million to 31 Tribes
for specific watershed projects through
a competitive process. EPA expects that
the amount of competitive funding
available in FY 2006 will be similar or
slightly lower than the amount available
in FY 2005, since the availability of
competitive funding is dependent, in
part, upon the amount of funding that
remains after a portion is first
distributed as base grants to all eligible
Tribes (which may increase due to
additional Tribes entering the NPS
program).
EPA anticipates awarding
approximately 30 competitive grants,
subject to availability of funds and the
quality of applications submitted under
this RFP. Eligible Tribes may apply for
competitive funding by submitting a
proposal up to a maximum budget of
$150,000 of federal section 319 funding
(plus the additional required match of
the total project cost). Proposals
evaluated, but not selected for this
funding, may be retained for
consideration for possible future awards
if additional funding materializes. Any
additional selections for award under
this RFP based on additional funding
will be in accordance with the rankings
developed by the review Committee
(discussed below in section B.V.2) and
must be made within six months of the
original competitive funding decisions.
EPA reserves the right to make partial
awards by funding discrete activities,
portions, or phases of the proposal. If
EPA decides to partially fund the
proposal, it will do so in a manner that
does not prejudice any applicants or
affect the basis upon which the
proposal/application, or portion thereof,
was evaluated and selected for award,
and that maintains the integrity of the
competition and the evaluation/
selection process.
sroberts on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES
III. Eligibility Information
1. Eligible Applicants
To be eligible for NPS grants, a Tribe
or intertribal consortium must: (1) Be
federally recognized; (2) have an
approved NPS assessment report in
accordance with CWA section 319(a);
(3) have an approved NPS management
program in accordance with CWA
section 319(b); and (4) have ‘‘treatmentas-a-state’’ (TAS) status in accordance
with CWA section 518(e). To be eligible
for NPS grants in FY 2006, Tribes must
meet these eligibility requirements as of
October 14, 2005.
Some Tribes have formed intertribal
consortia to promote cooperative work.
An intertribal consortium is a
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:57 Jan 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
partnership between two or more Tribes
that is authorized by the governing
bodies of those Tribes to apply for and
receive assistance under this program.
(See 40 CFR 35.502.) Individual Tribes
who are a part of an intertribal consortia
that is awarded a section 319
competitive grant may not also be
awarded an individual section
competitive 319 grant. (Note that
individual Tribes may still be eligible to
apply for base funds described above in
Section A if they do not also submit a
proposal for base funds as part of an
intertribal consortium.)
The intertribal consortium is eligible
only if the consortium demonstrates that
all its members meet the eligibility
requirements for the section 319
program and authorize the consortium
to apply for and receive assistance in
accordance with 40 CFR 35.504. An
intertribal consortium must submit to
EPA adequate documentation of the
existence of the partnership and the
authorization of the consortium by its
members to apply for and receive the
grant. (See 40 CFR 35.504.)
2. Cost Sharing or Matching
Section 319(h)(3) of the CWA requires
that the match for NPS grants is 40
percent of the total project cost. In
general, as required in 40 CFR 31.24, the
match requirement can be satisfied by
any of the following: Allowable costs
incurred by the grantee, subgrantee, or
a cost-type contractor, including those
allowable costs borne by non-federal
grants; by cash donations from nonfederal third parties; or by the value of
third party in-kind contributions.
EPA’s regulations also provide that
EPA may decrease the match
requirement to as low as ten percent if
the Tribe can demonstrate in writing to
the Regional Administrator that fiscal
circumstances within the Tribe or
within each Tribe that is a member of
the intertribal consortium are
constrained to such an extent that
fulfilling the match requirement would
impose undue hardship. (See 40 CFR
35.635.) In making grant awards to
Tribes that provide for a reduced match
requirement, Regions must include a
brief finding in the final award package
that the Tribe has demonstrated that it
does not have adequate funds to meet
the required match.
Performance Partnership Grants (PPG)
enable Tribes to combine funds from
more than one environmental program
grant into a single grant with a single
budget. If the Tribe includes the section
319 competitive grant as a part of an
approved PPG, the match requirement
may be reduced to 5 percent of the
allowable cost of the work plan budget
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2537
for the first 2 years in which the Tribe
receives a PPG; after 2 years, the match
may be increased up to 10 percent of the
work plan budget (as determined by the
Regional Administrator). (See 40 CFR
35.536).
A section 319 grant awarded under
this RFP should not be included in a
PPG unless the work plan upon which
a decision is made to award the
competitive grant is included in the
PPG. If a proposed PPG work plan
differs significantly from the section 319
work plan approved for funding under
this RFP, the Regional Administrator
must consult with the National Program
Manager. (See 40 CFR 35.535). The
purpose of this requirement is to avoid
any potential that the project will not
ultimately be implemented once
commingled with other grant programs
in a PPG.
3. Threshold Evaluation Criteria
In addition to applicant eligibility and
cost-share (discussed above in sections
B.III.1 and B.III.2, respectively), all of
the following additional threshold
evaluation criteria must be met in order
for a Tribe’s application to be evaluated
under section B.V and be considered for
award.
a. An individual Tribe (or intertribal
consortium) may not be awarded
competitive funding for more than one
competitive grant proposal in a given
year.
b. An individual Tribe (or intertribal
consortium) may apply for competitive
funding by submitting a proposal up to
a maximum budget of $150,000 of
federal section 319 funding (plus the
additional required match of the total
project cost). If a Tribe submits a
proposal that exceeds $150,000 (of
federal section 319 funding), it will be
rejected from further consideration.
c. All applications must propose to
fund activities that are related to waters
within a reservation or they will be
rejected. Section 319 grants may be
awarded to Tribes for use outside the
reservation only if they fund activities
that are related to waters within a
reservation, such as those relating to
sources upstream of a waterway
entering the reservation.
i. Activities That Are Related to Waters
Within a Reservation
Section 518(e) of the CWA provides
that EPA may treat an Indian Tribe as
a State for purposes of section 319 of the
CWA if, among other things, ‘‘the
functions to be exercised by the Indian
Tribe pertain to the management and
protection of water resources which are
* * * within the borders of an Indian
reservation’’ (see 33 U.S.C. 1377(e)(2)).
E:\FR\FM\17JAN1.SGM
17JAN1
2538
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Notices
EPA already awards grants to Tribes
under section 106 of the CWA for
activities performed outside of a
reservation (on condition that the Tribe
obtains any necessary access agreements
and coordinates with the State, as
appropriate) that pertain to reservation
waters, such as evaluating impacts of
upstream waters on water resources
within a reservation. Similarly, EPA has
awarded section 106 grants to States to
conduct monitoring outside of State
borders. EPA has concluded that grants
awarded to an Indian Tribe pursuant to
section 319 may similarly be used to
perform eligible section 319 activities
outside of a reservation if: (1) The
activity pertains to the management and
protection of waters within a
reservation; and (2) just as for onreservation activities, the Tribe meets all
other applicable requirements.
ii. Activities That Are Unrelated to
Waters of a Reservation
sroberts on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES
As discussed above, EPA is
authorized to award section 319 grants
to Tribes to perform eligible section 319
activities if the activities pertain to the
management and protection of waters
within a reservation and the Tribe meets
all other applicable requirements. In
contrast, EPA is not authorized to award
section 319 grants for activities that do
not pertain to waters of a reservation.
For off-reservation areas, including
‘‘usual and accustomed’’ hunting,
fishing, and gathering places, EPA must
determine whether the activities pertain
to waters of a reservation prior to
awarding a grant.
d. All work plans must be consistent
with the Tribe’s approved NPS
management program and conform to
legal requirements that are applicable to
all environmental program grants
awarded to Tribes (see 40 CFR 35.505
and 35.507) as well as the legal
requirements that specifically apply to
NPS management grants (see 40 CFR
35.638). As provided in those
regulations, all proposed work plans
must include:
i. Description of each significant category
of NPS activity to be addressed;
ii. Work plan components;
iii. Work plan commitments for each work
plan component, including anticipated
environmental outcomes and outputs (as
required by EPA Order 5700.7) and the
applicant’s plan for tracking and measuring
its progress towards achieving the expected
outcomes and outputs identified in Section
B.I of this RFP;
iv. Estimated funding amounts for each
work plan component;
v. Estimated work years for each work plan
component;
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:57 Jan 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
vi. Roles and responsibilities of the
recipient and EPA in carrying out the work
plan commitments; and
vii. Reporting schedule and a description
of the performance evaluation process that
will be used that accounts for: (a) A
discussion of accomplishments as measured
against work plan commitments and
anticipated environmental outcomes and
outputs; (b) a discussion of the cumulative
effectiveness of the work performed under all
work plan components; (c) a discussion of
existing and potential problem areas; and (d)
suggestions for improvement, including,
where feasible, schedules for making
improvements.
IV. Application and Submission
Information
EPA will respond to questions from
individual applicants regarding
threshold eligibility criteria,
administrative issues related to the
submission of the proposal/application,
and requests for clarification about the
announcement. Questions must be
submitted before February 15, 2006 in
writing to the appropriate EPA Regional
Tribal NPS Coordinator and written
responses will be posted on EPA’s Web
site at: https://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/
tribal. In accordance with EPA’s
Competition Policy (EPA Order
5700.5A1), EPA staff will not meet with
individual applicants to discuss draft
proposals, provide informal comments
on draft proposals, or provide advice to
applicants on how to respond to ranking
criteria. Applicants are responsible for
the contents of their applications.
1. Address To Request Application
Package
Applicants may download individual
grant application forms, or
electronically request a paper
application package and an
accompanying computer CD of
information related to applicants/grant
recipients roles and responsibilities
from EPA’s Grants Web site by visiting:
https://www.epa.gov/ogd/grants/
how_to_apply.htm. Applicants may also
apply electronically through https://
www.grants.gov as explained below.
2. Content and Form of Application
Submission
Please note that only the one-page
Standard Form 424 needs to be included
in the initial application, along with the
work plan narrative described in this
RFP. If your application is selected, the
entire grants package will need to be
completed by June 5, 2006.
a. Signed Standard Form 424 (one page)
b. Narrative Work Plan
Tribes must submit a work plan
following the required outline above in
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
section B.III.3.d to be considered for
competitive funding for FY 2006.
3. Submission Dates and Times for
Proposals for Competitive Funding
You may submit either a paper
proposal or an electronic proposal
through https://www.grants.gov (but not
both) for this announcement. If you
submit a paper application, the
appropriate EPA Regional Tribal NPS
Coordinator must receive the SF 424
and proposed work plan described
above for competitive funding by 5 p.m.
local time on March 1, 2006 (see section
B.VII for Agency contact information). If
you submit your application
electronically through
https://www.grants.gov, you must meet
the requirements for electronic
submission outlined in section B.IV.6
below and your proposal must be
received through https://www.grants.gov
no later than 11:59 p.m. on March 1,
2006. Any application packages
received after the due date will not be
considered for funding.
4. Funding Restrictions
The use of competitive funding for the
development of a watershed-based plan
will be limited to 20 percent of the
competitive award (e.g., up to $30,000
of a $150,000 grant) to assure that these
competitive funds are primarily focused
on implementation activities. If a Tribe
submits a work plan to develop a
watershed-based plan, it must be
submitted as a component of the overall
work plan for implementing a
watershed project (i.e., a Tribe will not
receive competitive funding only for the
development of a watershed-based
plan).
5. Confidential Business Information
In accordance with 40 CFR 2.203,
applicants may claim all or a portion of
their application/proposal as
confidential business information. EPA
will evaluate confidentiality claims in
accordance with 40 CFR Part 2.
Applicants must clearly mark
applications/proposals or portions of
applications/proposals they claim as
confidential. If no claim of
confidentiality is made, EPA is not
required to make the inquiry to the
applicant otherwise required by 40 CFR
2.204(c)(2) prior to disclosure.
6. Submission Instructions for
Electronic Applications Using
Grants.gov
In lieu of hard copy submission, you
may submit the proposal described
above electronically through https://
www.grants.gov as explained below. The
electronic submission of your proposal
E:\FR\FM\17JAN1.SGM
17JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Notices
must be made by an official
representative of your institution who is
registered with Grants.gov. For more
information, go to https://www.grants.gov
and click on ‘‘Get Started,’’ and then
‘‘For AORs’’ (Authorized Organizational
Representative) on the left side of the
page. Note that the registration process
may take a week or longer to complete.
If your organization is not currently
registered with Grants.gov, please
encourage your office to designate an
AOR and ask that individual to begin
the registration process as soon as
possible.
To begin the application process for
this grant program, go to https://
www.grants.gov and click on ‘‘Apply for
Grants.’’ Then click on ‘‘Apply Step 1:
Download a Grant Application Package
and Application Instructions’’ to
download the PureEdge viewer and
obtain the application package (https://
www.apply.grants.gov/
forms_apps_idx.html). You may retrieve
the application package by entering
either the CFDA number of 66.460 or
Funding Opportunity Number EPA–
OW–OWOW–06–2 in the space
provided. You may also be able to
access the application package by
clicking on the button at the bottom
right side of the synopsis on https://
www.grants.gov that says ‘‘Apply for
Grants Electronically.’’
Your organization’s AOR must submit
your complete proposal electronically to
EPA through Grants.gov (https://
www.grants.gov) no later than 11:59
p.m. on March 1, 2006. The application
package must include the following
materials:
sroberts on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES
a. Signed Standard Form 424
Complete the form. There are no
attachments. Please be sure to include
organization fax number and e-mail
address in Block 5 of the Standard Form
424.
b. Narrative Work Plan
The work plan must include the
minimum components set forth in
section B.III.3.d of this RFP and will be
evaluated based on the selection criteria
set forth below in section B.V.1 of this
announcement. Applicants who elect to
use https://www.grants.gov to apply will
need to refer to section B.III.3.d of this
RFP when preparing the work plan.
Documents a and b listed above
should appear in the ‘‘Mandatory
Documents’’ box on the Grants.gov
Grant Application page.
For Document a, click on the SF424
form and then click ‘‘Open Form’’ below
the box. The fields that must be
completed will be highlighted in
yellow. Optional fields and completed
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:57 Jan 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
fields will be displayed in white. If you
enter an invalid response or incomplete
information in a field, you will receive
an error message. When you have
finished filling out the form, click
‘‘Save.’’ When you return to the
electronic Grant Application Package
page, click on the form you just
completed, and then click on the box
that says, ‘‘Move Form to Submission
List.’’ This action will move the
document over to the box that says,
‘‘Mandatory Completed Documents for
Submission.’’
For document b, you will need to
attach electronic files containing the
information required by section B.III.3.d
of this RFP. Prepare your work plan and
save it to your computer as an MS
Word, PDF, or WordPerfect file. When
you are ready to attach your work plan
to the application package, click on
‘‘Project Narrative Attachment Form,’’
and open the form. Click ‘‘Add
Mandatory Project Narrative File,’’ and
then attach your work plan (previously
saved to your computer) using the
browse window that appears. You may
then click ‘‘View Mandatory Project
Narrative File Filename;’’ the file name
should be no more than 40 characters
long. If there are other attachments that
you would like to submit to accompany
your proposal, you may click ‘‘Add
Optional Project Narrative File’’ and
proceed as before. When you have
finished attaching the necessary
documents, click ‘‘Close Form.’’ When
you return to the ‘‘Grant Application
Package’’ page, select the ‘‘Project
Narrative Attachment Form’’ and click
‘‘Move Form to Submission List.’’ The
form should now appear in the box that
says, ‘‘Mandatory Completed
Documents for Submission.’’
Once you have finished filling out all
of the forms/attachments and they
appear in one of the ‘‘Completed
Documents for Submission’’ boxes, click
the ‘‘Save’’ button that appears at the
top of the Web page. It is suggested that
you save the document a second time,
using a different name, since this will
make it easier to submit an amended
package later if necessary. Please use the
following format when saving your file:
‘‘Applicant Name—FY06 Tribal 319
Competitive Grants—1st Submission’’ or
‘‘Applicant Name—FY06 Tribal 319
Competitive Grants—Back-up
Submission.’’ If it becomes necessary to
submit an amended package at a later
date, then the name of the 2nd
submission should be changed to
‘‘Applicant Name—FY06 Tribal 319
Competitive Grants—2nd Submission.’’
Once your application package has
been completed and saved, send it to
your AOR for submission to U.S. EPA
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2539
through Grants.gov. Please advise your
AOR to close all other software
programs before attempting to submit
the application package through
Grants.gov.
In the ‘‘Application Filing Name’’
box, your AOR should enter your
organization’s name (abbreviate where
possible), the fiscal year (e.g., FY06),
and the grant category (e.g., Tribal 319
Grants). The filing name should not
exceed 40 characters. From the ‘‘Grant
Application Package’’ page, your AOR
may submit the application package by
clicking the ‘‘Submit’’ button that
appears at the top of the page. The AOR
will then be asked to verify the agency
and funding opportunity number for
which the application package is being
submitted. If problems are encountered
during the submission process, the AOR
should reboot his/her computer before
trying to submit the application package
again. [It may be necessary to turn off
the computer (not just restart it) before
attempting to submit the package again.]
If the AOR continues to experience
submission problems, he/she may
contact Grants.gov for assistance by
phone at 1–800–518–4726 or e-mail at
support@grants.gov.
If you have not received a
confirmation of receipt from EPA (not
from support@grant.gov) within 30 days
of the application deadline, please
contact the appropriate EPA Regional
Tribal NPS Coordinator identified in
section B.VII below. Failure to do so
may result in your application not being
reviewed.
V. Application Review Information
1. Selection Criteria for Competitive
Grants
Tribes submitting proposals for
competitive grants must comply with all
of the threshold evaluation criteria
described in section B.III.3 in order to
be considered for further evaluation
under this section. The EPA Regional
Tribal NPS Coordinator will determine
whether the proposals comply with the
threshold evaluation criteria, and will
forward proposals that do to EPA
Headquarters NPS Control Branch for
distribution to EPA’s Watershed Project
Review Committee. Proposals that do
not comply with the threshold
evaluation criteria will be rejected and
not evaluated under this section.
EPA’s Watershed Project Review
Committee will evaluate proposals by
assigning a value of 0 to 5 (with 5 being
highest) for each factor described below
based upon how well the following list
of specific elements are represented in
the work plan. Each factor has been
assigned a specific weight which will be
E:\FR\FM\17JAN1.SGM
17JAN1
sroberts on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES
2540
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Notices
multiplied (by a value of 0–5) to
calculate a total point score for the
particular factor. The scores for each
factor are then combined to result in a
total score for the overall work plan—
the total maximum score available is
900.
EPA’s Watershed Project Review
Committee will evaluate proposals for
competitive grants based upon the
following evaluation factors (and
corresponding weights):
a. The extent, and quality, to which
the subcategories of NPS pollution are
identified and described. (Weight = 20;
100 points maximum.)
The work plan will be evaluated
based upon the extent, and quality, to
which it identifies each significant
subcategory of NPS pollution. Since
identifying the categories of NPS
pollution (e.g., agriculture) is a
threshold evaluation criteria, the
proposed work plan will be evaluated
based upon how well it identifies
sources at the subcategory level with
estimates of the extent to which these
subcategories are present in the
watershed (e.g., X number of dairy cattle
feedlots needing upgrading, including a
rough estimate of the number of cattle
per facility; Y acres of row crops
needing improved nutrient management
or sediment control; or Z linear miles of
eroded streambank needing
remediation).
b. The extent, and quality, to which
the water quality problems or threats to
be addressed are identified and
described. (Weight = 20; 100 points
maximum.)
The work plan will be evaluated
based upon the extent, and quality, to
which it identifies each water quality
problem or threat to be addressed
caused by the subcategories of NPS
pollution identified in evaluation factor
(a) above. EPA encourages Tribes to
incorporate specific descriptions of
water quality problems or threats, for
example, in relation to impairments to
water quality standards or other
parameters that indicate stream health
(e.g., decreases in fish or
macroinvertebrate counts).
c. The extent, and quality, to which
the goals and objectives of the project
specifically identify the project location
and activities to be implemented.
(Weight = 20; 100 points maximum.)
The work plan will be evaluated
based upon how well it specifically
identifies where the NPS project will
take place and the waterbody affected
by the NPS pollutants (provides map);
and the level of detail provided in
relation to the specific activities that
will be implement (e.g., identifies
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:57 Jan 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
specific management measures and
practices to be implemented).
d. The extent to which significant
water quality benefits will be achieved
as a result of the project. (Weight = 20;
100 points maximum.)
The work plan will be evaluated
based upon the extent to which it
describes how significant water quality
benefits will be achieved as a result of
the project, either through restoring
NPS-impaired waters or addressing
threats to unimpaired waters. EPA
encourages Tribes to incorporate
specific water quality-based goals that
are linked to: Load reductions; water
quality standards for one or more
pollutants/uses; NPS total maximum
daily load allocations; measurable, instream reductions in a pollutant; or
improvements in a parameter that
indicates stream health (e.g., increases
in fish or macroinvertebrate counts). If
information is not available to make
specific estimates, water quality-based
goals may include narrative descriptions
and best professional judgment based on
existing information.
e. The specificity of the budget in
relation to each work plan component.
(Weight = 15; 75 points maximum.)
The work plan will be evaluated
based upon the level of specificity of the
budget in relation to each work plan
component, and the extent to which it
outlines the total operational and
construction costs of the project
(including match). Budget categories
may include, but are not limited to, the
following items: personnel; travel;
equipment; supplies; contractual; and
construction costs.
f. The level of detail in relation to the
schedule for achieving the activities
identified in the work plan. (Weight =
15; 75 points maximum.)
The work plan will be evaluated
based upon the level of detail and
clarity that it includes in relation to the
schedule of activities for each work plan
component. Such information includes,
but is not limited to, the following:
identifies a specific ‘‘start’’ and ‘‘end’’
date for each work plan component; an
estimate of the specific work years for
each work plan component; and interim
milestone dates for achieving each work
plan component. A proposal that
includes a schedule that can be
implemented with minimal delay upon
the award of the grant (i.e., indicates a
‘‘readiness to proceed’’) will score
higher than proposals which may
require significant further action before
the project can be implemented.
g. The extent to which the roles and
responsibilities of the recipient and
project partners in carrying out the work
plan activities are specifically
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
identified. (Weight = 15; 75 points
maximum.)
The work plan will be evaluated
based upon how specifically and clearly
it defines the roles and responsibilities
of each responsible party in relation to
each work plan component, which may
include, but is not limited to, the
following: defining the specific level of
effort for the responsible parties for each
work plan component; identifying
parties who will take the lead in
carrying out the work plan
commitments; and identifying other
programs, parties, and agencies that will
provide additional technical and/or
financial assistance.
h. The extent to which the
performance evaluation process
includes specific, measurable, and
objective factors that are clearly linked
to specific work plan activities
throughout the project period and the
anticipated environmental outcomes
and outputs. (Weight = 15; 75 points
maximum.)
The work plan will be evaluated
based on the extent to which the
performance evaluation process
includes specific, measurable, and
objective factors that are clearly linked
to specific work plan activities
throughout the project period and how
clearly it tracks and measures progress
towards achieving the expected
outcomes and outputs identified in
Section B.I.
i. The extent, and quality, to which
the proposal addresses one of the
following four factors (for factors 1, 2,
and 3 the applicant must include the
information described in Attachment A
in its work plan). (Weight = 40; 200
points maximum.)
1: The proposed work plan develops
a watershed-based plan and implements
a watershed-based plan.
If a work plan includes a plan to
develop a watershed-based plan, it will
be evaluated based on the extent to
which it: Includes a commitment to
incorporate the nine components of a
watershed-based plan described in
Attachment A; clearly identifies the
geographical coverage of the watershed;
includes a specific schedule for
developing the watershed-based plan;
and clearly identifies the estimated
funds that will be used to develop the
watershed-based plan (not to exceed 20
percent of the overall competitive
grant).
If a Tribe submits a work plan to
implement a watershed-based plan, it
will be evaluated based on the extent to
which it: Is accompanied by a statement
that the Region finds that the watershedbased plan to be implemented includes
the nine components of a watershed-
E:\FR\FM\17JAN1.SGM
17JAN1
2541
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Notices
based plan identified in Attachment A;
identifies and briefly summarizes the
watershed-based plan that will be
implemented; and describes how the
proposed work plan will make progress
towards achieving the overall goals of
the watershed-based plan and the
specific water quality-based goals
identified in the watershed-based plan.
2: The proposed work plan develops
a watershed-based plan and implements
a watershed project (that does not
implement a watershed-based plan).
If a work plan includes a plan to
develop a watershed-based plan, it will
be evaluated based on the extent to
which it: Includes a commitment to
incorporate the nine components of a
watershed-based plan described in
Attachment A; clearly identifies the
geographical coverage of the watershed;
includes a specific schedule for
developing the watershed-based plan;
and clearly identifies the estimated
funds that will be used to develop the
watershed-based plan (not to exceed 20
percent of the overall competitive
grant).
If a work plan is designed to
implement a watershed project that is
not implementing a watershed-based
plan, it will be evaluated based on the
extent to which it can be linked to or
expanded upon to address NPS
impairments or threats on a watershedwide basis. For example, a work plan
that sets a precedent for future
implementation on a watershed-basis
will be ranked higher than a work plan
that implements an individual
demonstration project designed to
address an individual threat or problem.
3: The proposed work plan
implements a watershed-based plan.
If a Tribe submits a work plan to
implement a watershed-based plan, it
will be evaluated based on the extent to
which it: Is accompanied by a statement
that the Region finds that the watershedbased plan to be implemented includes
the nine components of a watershedbased plan identified in Attachment A;
identifies and briefly summarizes the
watershed-based plan that will be
implemented; and describes how the
proposed work plan will make progress
towards achieving the overall goals of
the watershed-based plan and the
specific water quality-based goals
identified in the watershed-based plan.
4: The proposed work plan
implements a watershed project that is
a significant step towards solving NPS
impairments or threats on a watershedwide basis.
If a work plan is designed to
implement a watershed project that is
not implementing a watershed-based
plan, it will be evaluated based on the
extent to which can be linked to or
expanded upon to address NPS
impairments or threats on a watershedwide basis. For example, a work plan
that sets a precedent for future
implementation on a watershed-basis
will be ranked higher than a work plan
that implements an individual
demonstration project designed to
address an individual threat or problem.
2. Review and Selection Process for
Competitive Funding
The EPA Regional Tribal NPS
Coordinators will determine whether
the proposals comply with the threshold
evaluation criteria described in section
B.III.3, and will forward those proposals
that meet the threshold evaluation
criteria to EPA Headquarters NPS
Control Branch by approximately March
15, 2006.
EPA will establish a Watershed
Project Review Committee (Committee)
comprised of nine EPA staff, including
three EPA Regional State NPS
Coordinators, three EPA Regional Tribal
NPS Coordinators, two staff members of
the EPA Headquarters NPS Control
Branch, and one staff member of EPA’s
American Indian Environmental Office.
EPA Headquarters NPS Control
Branch will forward copies of the
proposed work plans for competitive
funding to the Committee and hold a
conference call with the Committee on
or around March 29, 2006, to ensure
that all Committee members fully
understand how to objectively and
consistently apply the criteria discussed
above. Scores for each proposal will be
developed by each Committee member
based on evaluating proposals against
the factors identified above in
accordance with the weighting system
described in section B.V.1.
On or around April 26, 2006, the
Committee will forward the scores for
each proposal to EPA Headquarters NPS
Control Branch. Based on these scores,
EPA Headquarters NPS Control Branch
will calculate the average score for each
proposal and then rank the proposals
based on the resulting average scores.
On or around May 3, 2006, EPA
Headquarters NPS Control Branch will
send the resulting average scores and
rankings to the Committee and hold a
conference call to provide a final
opportunity for members of the
Committee to discuss the rankings based
on the average scores. The Committee
will then make funding
recommendations to EPA Headquarters
NPS Control Branch based on these
rankings; however, in making the
funding recommendations, in addition
to considering the rankings, the
Committee may also give priority
consideration to high quality proposals
that are designed to develop and/or
implement a watershed-based plan. EPA
Headquarters NPS Control Branch then
will make the final funding decision
based on the Committee’s
recommendations.
The Committee will use the following
‘‘Competitive Work Plan Evaluation
Review Sheet’’ to rank proposed work
plans in accordance with the evaluation
criteria discussed above.
Competitive Work Plan Evaluation
Review Sheet
Tribe Namellllllllll
Reviewerllll(Weight × Value =
Score) (Value: 0 is Lowest; 5 is Highest)
(Maximum ‘‘Max’’ Score is 900)
Weight
Evaluation factors
Value
20 ........
(1) The extent, and quality, to which the subcategories of NPS pollution are identified and described. Comments (strengths, weaknesses):
(2) The extent, and quality, to which the water quality problems or threats to be addressed are identified and
described. Comments (strengths, weaknesses):
(3) The extent, and quality, to which the goals and objectives of the project specifically identify the project location and activities to be implemented. Comments (strengths, weaknesses):
(4) The extent to which significant water quality benefits will be achieved as a result of the project. Comments
(strengths, weaknesses):
(5) The specificity of the budget in relation to each work plan component. Comments (strengths, weaknesses):
(6) The level of detail in relation to the schedule for achieving the activities identified in the work plan. Comments (strengths, weaknesses):
(7) The extent to which the roles and responsibilities of the recipient and project partners in carrying out the
work plan activities are specifically identified. Comments (strengths, weaknesses):
5 Max ..
100 Max.
5 Max ..
100 Max.
5 Max ..
100 Max.
5 Max ..
100 Max.
5 Max ..
75 Max.
5 Max ..
75 Max.
5 Max ..
75 Max.
20 ........
20 ........
sroberts on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES
20 ........
15 ........
15 ........
15 ........
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:57 Jan 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\17JAN1.SGM
17JAN1
Score
2542
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Notices
Weight
Evaluation factors
Value
15 ........
(8) The extent to which the performance evaluation process includes specific, measurable, and objective factors that are clearly linked to specific work plan activities throughout the project period and the anticipated
environmental outcomes and outputs. Comments (strengths, weaknesses):
(9) The extent, and quality, to which the proposal addresses one of the following four factors:
(a) The proposed work plan develops a watershed-based plan and implements a watershed-based plan.
(b) The proposed work plan develops a watershed-based plan and implements a watershed project (that
does not implement a watershed-based plan).
(c) The proposed work plan implements a watershed-based plan.
(d) The proposed work plan implements a watershed project that is a significant step towards solving NPS
impairments or threats on a watershed-wide basis. Comments (strengths, weaknesses):
5 Max ..
75 Max.
5 Max ..
200 Max.
40 ........
Total Maximum Score
900
3. Anticipated Announcement and
Award Dates
On or around May 5, 2006, EPA
Headquarters NPS Control Branch will
select the proposals for award and
announce to the Regions which Tribes’
work plans have been selected for
competitive funding. These Tribes will
be notified immediately by phone or email, with a written letter to follow.
VI. Award Administration Information
sroberts on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES
1. Award Notices
Following final selections, all
applicants will be notified regarding
their application’s status.
a. EPA anticipates notification to
successful applicant(s) will be made by
the appropriate EPA Regional Tribal
NPS Coordinator via telephone,
electronic, or postal mail on or around
May 5, 2006. This notification, which
advises that the applicant’s proposal has
been selected and is being
recommended for award, is not an
authorization to begin performance. The
award notice signed by the EPA award
official is the authorizing document and
will be provided through postal mail. At
a minimum, this process can take 90
days from the date of selection
notification.
b. EPA anticipates notification to
unsuccessful applicant(s) will be made
by the appropriate EPA Regional Tribal
NPS Coordinator via electronic or postal
mail within 15 calendar days after final
selection of successful applicants. In
either event, the notification will be sent
to the signer of the application.
c. The appropriate EPA Regional
Tribal NPS Coordinator will notify
applicants which do not meet the
threshold eligibility criteria under
section B.III.3 within 15 calendar days
of EPA’s decision on applicant
eligibility.
2. Administrative and National Policy
Requirements
a. A listing and description of general
EPA regulations applicable to the award
of assistance agreements may be viewed
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:57 Jan 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
Score
at: https://www.epa.gov/ogd/AppKit/
appplicable_epa_regulations_
and_description.htm.
b. All applicants are required to
provide a Dun and Bradstreet (D&B)
Data Universal Numbering System
(DUNS) number when applying for a
Federal grant or cooperative agreement.
Applicants can receive a DUNS number,
at no cost, by calling the dedicated
tollfree DUNS Number request line at 1–
866–705–5711, or visiting the D&B Web
site at: https://www.dnb.com.
c. Pursuant to CWA section
319(h)(12), administrative costs in the
form of salaries, overhead, or indirect
costs for services provided and charged
against activities and programs carried
out with the grant shall not exceed 10
percent of the grant award. The costs of
implementing enforcement and
regulatory activities, education, training,
technical assistance, demonstration
projects, and technology transfer are not
subject to this limitation.
d. For a Tribe (or intertribal
consortium) that received section 319
funds in the preceding fiscal year,
section 319(h)(8) of the CWA requires
that the Region determine whether the
Tribe made ‘‘satisfactory progress’’
during the previous fiscal year in
meeting the schedule of activities
specified in its approved NPS
management program in order to receive
section 319 funding in the current fiscal
year. The Region will base this
determination on an examination of
Tribal activities, reports, reviews, and
other documents and discussions with
the Tribe in the previous year. Regions
must include in each section 319 grant
(or in a separate document, such as the
grant-issuance cover letter, that is
signed by the same EPA official who
signs the grant), a written determination
that the Tribe has made satisfactory
progress during the previous fiscal year
in meeting the schedule of milestones
specified in its NPS management
program. The Regions must include
brief explanations that support their
determinations.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3. Reporting
As provided in 40 CFR 31.40, 31.41,
35.507, 35.515, and 35.638, all section
319 grants must include a set of
reporting requirements and a process for
evaluating performance. Some of these
requirements have been explicitly
incorporated into the required work
plan components that all Tribes must
include in order to receive section 319
grant funding.
The work plan components required
for section 319 funding, specifically
those relating to work plan
commitments and timeframes for their
accomplishment, facilitate the
management and oversight of Tribal
grants by providing specific activities
and outputs by which progress can be
monitored. The performance evaluation
process and reporting schedule (both
work plan components) also establish a
formal process by which
accomplishments can be measured.
Additionally, the satisfactory progress
determination (for Tribes that received
section 319 funding in the preceding
fiscal year) helps ensure that Tribes are
making progress in achieving the goals
in their NPS management programs.
Regions will ensure that the required
evaluations are performed according to
the negotiated schedule (at least
annually) and that copies of evaluation
reports are placed in the official files
and provided to the recipient.
4. Dispute Resolution
Assistance agreement competitionrelated disputes will be resolved in
accordance with the dispute resolution
procedures published in 70 FR 3629,
3630 (January 26, 2005) which can be
found at https://a257.g.akamaitech.net/
7/257/2422/01jan20051800/
edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/051371.htm. Copies of these procedures
may also be requested by contacting the
EPA Regional Tribal NPS Coordinator
listed in section B.VII below.
E:\FR\FM\17JAN1.SGM
17JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES
VII. Agency Contacts: EPA Headquarters
and Regional Tribal NPS Coordinators
EPA Headquarters—Stacie Craddock,
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and
Watersheds, Assessment and Watershed
Protection Division, telephone: 202–
566–1204; e-mail:
craddock.stacie@epa.gov.
Region I—Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode
Island, Vermont; Warren Howard;
mailing address: U.S. EPA Region I, 1
Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA
02203; telephone: 617–918–1587; email: howard.warren@epa.gov.
Region II—New Jersey, New York,
Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands; Donna
Somboonlakana; mailing address: U.S.
EPA Region II, 290 Broadway—24th
Floor (MC DEPP:WPB), New York, New
York 10007; telephone: 212–637–3700;
e-mail: somboonlakana.donna@epa.gov.
Region III—Delaware, Maryland,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia,
Washington, DC; Fred Suffian; mailing
address: U.S. EPA Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103;
telephone: 215–814–5753; e-mail:
suffian.fred@epa.gov.
Region IV—Alabama, Florida,
Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee;
Yolanda Brown; mailing address: U.S.
EPA Region IV, Sam Nunn Atlanta
Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, GA 30303; telephone: 404–562–
9451; e-mail: brown.yolanda@epa.gov.
Region V—Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin; Daniel
Cozza; mailing address: U.S. EPA
Region V, 77 West Jackson Blvd. (MC:
WS–15J), Chicago, IL 60604; telephone:
312–886–7252; e-mail:
cozza.daniel@epa.gov.
Region VI—Arkansas, Louisiana, New
Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas; George Craft;
mailing address: U.S. EPA Region VI,
1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202;
telephone: 214–665–6684; e-mail:
craft.george@epa.gov.
Region VII—Iowa, Kansas, Missouri,
Nebraska; Peter Davis; mailing address:
U.S. EPA Region VII, 901 N. 5th Street,
Kansas City, KS 66101; telephone: 913–
551–7372; e-mail: davis.peter@epa.gov.
Region VIII—Colorado, Montana,
North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah,
Wyoming; Mitra Jha; mailing address:
U.S. EPA Region VIII, 999 18th Street,
Suite 300 (MC: EPR–EP), Denver, CO
80202; telephone: 303–312–6895; email: jha.mitra@epa.gov.
Region IX—Arizona, California,
Hawaii, Nevada, American Samoa,
Mariana Islands, Guam; Tiffany
Eastman; mailing address: U.S. EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street (MC:
WTR–10), San Francisco, CA 94105;
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:57 Jan 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
telephone: 1–800–735–2922, relay
#415–972–3404; e-mail:
eastman.tiffany@epa.gov.
Region X—Alaska, Idaho, Oregon,
Washington; Krista Mendelman; mailing
address: U.S. EPA Region X, 1200 6th
Avenue (MC: OWW–137), Seattle, WA
98101; telephone: 206–553–1571; email: mendelman.krista@epa.gov.
VIII. Other Information
1. Anticipated Deadlines and Milestones
for FY 2007 Competitive Grants
Beginning in FY 2007, the schedule
for submitting work plans and awarding
section 319 competitive grants will be
modified to expedite the grant awards
process. These modifications are
intended to ensure that award decisions
are made earlier in the fiscal year to
provide adequate time for Tribes to
implement work plans within the
applicable fiscal year. The following
estimated dates are provided in order to
assist Tribes in planning for EPA’s FY
2007 funding cycle for competitive
grants:
Date for Tribes to be eligible for 319
grants. October 13, 2006.
Tribes submit competitive grant
proposals. December 1, 2006
(anticipated).
Headquarters notifies Regions/Tribes
of selections. March 5, 2007
(anticipated).
Tribes submit final grant application
to Region. April 5, 2007 (anticipated).
Other than the date EPA will use to
determine eligibility to receive 319
grants, the dates above are the
anticipated dates for those actions.
2. Right to Reject All Proposals
EPA reserves the right to reject all
proposals or applications and make no
award as a result of this announcement.
The EPA Grant Award Officer is the
only official that can bind the Agency to
the expenditure of funds for selected
projects resulting from this
announcement.
Attachment A—Components of a WatershedBased Plan
1. An identification of the causes and
sources or groups of similar sources that will
need to be controlled to achieve the goal
identified in element 3 below. Sources that
need to be controlled should be identified at
the significant subcategory level with
estimates of the extent to which they are
present in the watershed (e.g., X number of
dairy cattle feedlots needing upgrading,
including a rough estimate of the number of
cattle per facility; Y acres of row crops
needing improved nutrient management or
sediment control; or Z linear miles of eroded
streambank needing remediation).
2. A description of the NPS management
measures that will need to be implemented
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2543
to achieve a water quality-based goal
described in element 3 below, as well as to
achieve other watershed goals identified in
the watershed-based plan, and an
identification (using a map or a description)
of the critical areas which those measures
will be needed to implement the plan.
3. An estimate of the water quality-based
goals expected to be achieved by
implementing the measures described in
element 2 above. To the extent possible,
estimates should identify specific water
quality-based goals, which may incorporate,
for example: load reductions; water quality
standards for one or more pollutants/uses;
NPS total maximum daily load allocations;
measurable, in-stream reductions in a
pollutant; or improvements in a parameter
that indicates stream health (e.g., increases in
fish or macroinvertebrate counts). If
information is not available to make specific
estimates, water quality-based goals may
include narrative descriptions and best
professional judgment based on existing
information.
4. An estimate of the amounts of technical
and financial assistance needed, associated
costs, and/or the sources and authorities that
will be relied upon to implement the plan.
As sources of funding, Tribes should
consider other relevant Federal, State, local
and private funds that may be available to
assist in implementing the plan.
5. An information and education
component that will be used to enhance
public understanding and encourage early
and continued participation in selecting,
designing, and implementing the NPS
management measures that will be
implemented.
6. A schedule for implementing the NPS
management measures identified in this plan
that is reasonably expeditious.
7. A description of interim, measurable
milestones for determining whether NPS
management measures or other control
actions are being implemented.
8. A set of criteria that can be used to
determine whether the water quality-based
goals are being achieved over time and
substantial progress is being made towards
attaining water quality-based goals and, if
not, the criteria for determining whether the
watershed-based plan needs to be revised.
9. A monitoring component to evaluate the
effectiveness of the implementation efforts
over time, measured against the criteria
established under element 8 above.
[FR Doc. E6–408 Filed 1–13–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2004–0337; FRL–7757–3]
Ferbam Reregistration Eligibility
Decision; Notice of Availability;
Correction
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice; correction.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\17JAN1.SGM
17JAN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 17, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2531-2543]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-408]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-8021-6]
Guidelines for Awarding Clean Water Act Section 319 Base Grants
to Indian Tribes in FY 2006; Request for Proposals From Indian Tribes
for Competitive Grants Under Clean Water Act Section 319 in FY 2006
(CFDA 66.460--Nonpoint Source Implementation Grants; Funding
Opportunity Number EPA-OW-OWOW-06-2)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of guidelines for Section 319 Base Grants and Request
for Proposals for Section 319 Competitive Grants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice publishes EPA's national guidelines for the award
of base grants and EPA's Request for Proposals (RFP) for the award of
supplemental funding in the form of competitive grants under the Clean
Water Act (CWA) section 319(h) nonpoint source (NPS) grants program to
Indian Tribes in FY 2006. Section 319 of the CWA authorizes EPA to
award grants to eligible Tribes for the purpose of assisting them in
implementing approved NPS management programs developed pursuant to
section 319(b). The primary goal of the NPS management program is to
control NPS pollution through implementation of management measures and
practices to reduce pollutant loadings resulting from each category or
subcategory of NPSs identified in the Tribe's NPS assessment report
developed pursuant to section 319(a). EPA intends to award a total of
$7,000,000 to eligible Tribes which have approved NPS assessments and
management programs and ``treatment-as-a-state'' (TAS) status as of
October 14, 2005. EPA expects the allocation of funds will be similar
to the amount distributed in FY 2005, which included approximately $2.8
million in base grants awarded to 84 Tribes and $4.2 million awarded to
31 Tribes through a competitive process. Section A includes
[[Page 2532]]
EPA's national guidelines which govern the process for awarding base
grants to all eligible Tribes, and section B is the national RFP for
awarding the remaining funds on a competitive basis.
DATES: This notice is effective January 17, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stacie Craddock, Office of Wetlands,
Oceans, and Watersheds, Assessment and Watershed Protection Division,
telephone: (202) 566-1204; fax: (202) 566-1331, e-mail:
craddock.stacie@epa.gov. Also contact the appropriate EPA Regional
Tribal NPS Coordinator identified in section B.VII.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
For the seventh year in a row, Congress has authorized EPA to award
NPS control grants to Indian Tribes in FY 2006 in an amount that
exceeds the statutory cap (in section 518(f) of the CWA) of \1/3\ of 1
percent of the total section 319 appropriation. There is continuing
recognition that Indian Tribes need increased financial support to
implement NPS programs that address critical water quality concerns on
Tribal lands. EPA will continue to work closely with the Tribes to
assist them in developing and implementing effective Tribal NPS
pollution programs.
EPA was pleased by the quality of the Tribes' work plans that
formed the basis of the grants awarded to Tribes in FY 2005, which
included approximately $2.8 million in base grants awarded to 84 Tribes
and $4.2 million awarded to 31 Tribes for specific watershed projects
through a competitive process. We believe that the FY 2005 grants were
directed towards high-priority activities that will produce on-the-
ground results that provide improved water quality. We look forward to
working with Tribes again in FY 2006 to implement successful projects
addressing the extensive NPS control needs throughout Indian country.
Guidelines for Awarding CWA Section 319 Base Grants to Indian Tribes in
FY 2006 (See Section A Below)
Section 319 of the CWA authorizes EPA to award grants to eligible
Tribes for the purpose of assisting them in implementing approved NPS
management programs developed pursuant to section 319(b). The primary
goal of the NPS management program is to control NPS pollution through
implementation of management measures and practices to reduce pollutant
loadings resulting from each category or subcategory of NPSs identified
in the Tribe's NPS assessment report developed pursuant to section
319(a). EPA will award section 319 base grants to eligible Tribes in
the amount of $30,000 or $50,000 (depending on land area). Section 319
base funds may be used for a range of activities that implement the
Tribe's approved NPS management program, including: Hiring a program
coordinator; conducting NPS education programs; providing training and
authorized travel to attend training; updating the NPS management
program; developing watershed-based plans; and implementing, alone or
in conjunction with other agencies or other funding sources, watershed-
based plans and on-the-ground watershed projects.
Request for Proposals From Indian Tribes for Competitive Grants Under
Clean Water Act Section 319 in FY 2006 (See Section B Below)
Overview Information:
This RFP is issued pursuant to section 319(h) of the CWA. Section
319 of the CWA authorizes EPA to award grants to eligible Tribes for
the purpose of assisting them in implementing approved NPS management
programs developed pursuant to section 319(b). The primary goal of the
NPS management program is to control NPS pollution through
implementation of management measures and practices to reduce pollutant
loadings resulting from each category or subcategory of NPSs identified
in the Tribe's NPS assessment report developed pursuant to section
319(a). EPA has set aside a portion of section 319 funds appropriated
by Congress for competitive grant awards to Tribes for the purpose of
funding: (1) The development of watershed-based plans; and/or (2) the
implementation of watershed projects that implement a watershed-based
plan; and/or (3) the implementation of other watershed projects not
implementing a watershed-based plan. Tribes are strongly encouraged to
submit proposals that develop and/or implement watershed-based plans
designed to protect unimpaired waters and restore NPS-impaired waters.
EPA believes that watershed-based plans provide the best means for
preventing and resolving NPS problems and threats. Watershed-based
plans provide a coordinating framework for solving water quality
problems by providing a specific geographic focus, integrating strong
partnerships, integrating strong science and data, and coordinating
priority setting and integrated solutions. EPA anticipates awarding
approximately 30 competitive grants, subject to availability of funds
and the quality of applications submitted. Eligible Tribes may apply
for competitive funding by submitting a proposal for up to a maximum
budget of $150,000 of federal section 319 funding (plus the additional
required match of the total project cost).
Federal Agency Name: EPA.
Funding Opportunity Title: Tribal Nonpoint Source Implementation
Grants.
Announcement Type: Request for Proposals.
Funding Opportunity Number: EPA-OW-OWOW-06-2.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 66.460.
Dates:
Date EPA uses to determine eligibility to receive competitive 319
grants. October 14, 2005.
Deadline for Tribes to submit proposals to Region or electronically
through grants.gov. March 1, 2006.
Headquarters notifies Regions/Tribes of selections for competitive
319 grants. May 5, 2006.
Tribes submit final grant application to Region for competitive 319
grants. June 5, 2006.
Other than the date EPA will use to determine eligibility to
receive 319 grants, the dates above are the anticipated dates for those
actions.
Dated: January 9, 2006.
Benjamin H. Grumbles,
Assistant Administrator for Water.
Section A. Guidelines for Awarding Clean Water Act Section 319 Base
Grants to Indian Tribes in FY 2006
I. General
Each eligible Tribe will receive base funding in accordance with
the following land area scale:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base
Square miles (acres) amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than 1,000 sq. mi. (less than 640,000 acres)............. $30,000
Over 1,000 sq. mi. (over 640,000 acres)....................... 50,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The land area scale is the same as used in previous years. EPA
continues to rely upon land area as the deciding factor for allocation
of funds because NPS pollution is strongly related to land use; thus
land area is a reasonable factor that generally is highly relevant to
identifying Tribes with the greatest needs (recognizing that many
Tribes have needs that significantly exceed available resources).
Section 319 base funds may be used for a range of activities that
implement the Tribe's approved NPS management program, including:
Hiring a program coordinator; conducting NPS education programs;
providing training and
[[Page 2533]]
authorized travel to attend training; updating the NPS management
program; developing watershed-based plans; and implementing, alone or
in conjunction with other agencies or other funding sources, watershed-
based plans and on-the-ground watershed projects. In general, base
funding should not be used for general assessment activities (e.g.,
monitoring the general status of reservation waters, which may be
supported with CWA section 106 funding). EPA encourages Tribes to use
section 319 funding, and explore the use of other funding such as CWA
section 106 funding, to support project-specific water quality
monitoring, data management, data analysis, assessment activities, and
the development of watershed-based plans.
II. Eligibility and Match Requirements
To be eligible for NPS base grants, a Tribe must: (1) Be federally
recognized; (2) have an approved NPS assessment report in accordance
with CWA section 319(a); (3) have an approved NPS management program in
accordance with CWA section 319(b); and (4) have ``treatment-as-a-
state'' (TAS) status in accordance with CWA section 518(e). To be
eligible for NPS grants in FY 2006, Tribes must meet these eligibility
requirements as of October 14, 2005 (as announced in the FY 2005
guidelines on December 22, 2004 at 69 FR 76733). Tribes should contact
their EPA Regional Tribal NPS Coordinator for further information about
the eligibility process (see section B.VII for Agency contact
information).
Section 319(h)(3) of the CWA requires that the match for NPS grants
is 40 percent of the total project cost. In general, as required in 40
CFR 31.24, the match requirement can be satisfied by any of the
following: Allowable costs incurred by the grantee, subgrantee, or a
cost-type contractor, including those allowable costs borne by non-
federal grants; by cash donations from non-federal third parties; or by
the value of third party in-kind contributions.
EPA's regulations also provide that EPA may decrease the match
requirement to as low as ten percent if the Tribe can demonstrate in
writing to the Regional Administrator that fiscal circumstances within
the Tribe or within each Tribe that is a member of the intertribal
consortium are constrained to such an extent that fulfilling the match
requirement would impose undue hardship (see 40 CFR 35.635). In making
grant awards to Tribes that provide for a reduced match requirement,
Regions must include a brief finding in the final award package that
the Tribe has demonstrated that it does not have adequate funds to meet
the required match.
III. Application Requirements for Base Allocation Grants
1. Address To Request Application Package for Base Allocation Grants
Applicants may download individual grant application forms, or
electronically request a paper application package and an accompanying
computer CD of information related to applicants/grant recipients roles
and responsibilities from EPA's Grants Web site by visiting: https://
www.epa.gov/ogd/grants/how_to_apply.htm. Please note that only the
narrative work plan needs to be included in the initial application. If
your application is approved, a complete application package will need
to be submitted by June 5, 2006.
2. Content and Form of Application Submission for Base Allocation
Grants
Section 319 base funds may be used for a range of activities that
implement the Tribe's approved NPS management program, including:
Hiring a program coordinator; conducting NPS education programs;
providing training and authorized travel to attend training; updating
the NPS management program; developing watershed-based plans; and
implementing, alone or in conjunction with other agencies or other
funding sources, watershed-based plans and on-the-ground watershed
projects.
The specific content and form of the application for the award of
section 319 base grants is as follows:
a. Narrative Work Plan
Tribes must submit a work plan to receive base funding for FY 2006.
All work plans must be consistent with the Tribe's approved NPS
management program and conform to legal requirements that are
applicable to all environmental program grants awarded to Tribes (see
40 CFR 35.505 and 35.507) as well as the grant requirements which
specifically apply to NPS management grants (see 40 CFR 35.638). As
provided in 40 CFR 35.507, 40 CFR 35.515, and 40 CFR 35.638, all work
plans must include:
i. Description of each significant category of NPS activity to
be addressed;
ii. Work plan components;
iii. Work plan commitments for each work plan component;
iv. Estimated funding amounts for each work plan component;
v. Estimated work years for each work plan component;
vi. Roles and responsibilities of the recipient and EPA in
carrying out the work plan commitments; and
vii. Reporting schedule and a description of the performance
evaluation process that will be used that accounts for: (a) A
discussion of accomplishments as measured against work plan
commitments; (b) a discussion of the cumulative effectiveness of the
work performed under all work plan components; (c) a discussion of
existing and potential problem areas; and (d) suggestions for
improvement, including, where feasible, schedules for making
improvements.
b. Work Plan To Develop a Watershed-Based Plan
If a Tribe submits a work plan to develop a watershed-based plan,
it must include a commitment to incorporate the nine components of a
watershed-based plan identified in section A.V.1 below.
c. Work Plan To Implement a Watershed-Based Plan
If a Tribe submits a work plan to implement a watershed-based plan,
it must be accompanied by a statement that the Region finds that the
watershed-based plan to be implemented includes the nine components of
a watershed-based plan identified in section A.V.1 below.
IV. Submission Dates and Times for Initial Applications for Base
Funding
Eligible Tribes must submit to the appropriate EPA Regional Tribal
NPS Coordinator applications for base funding by 5 p.m. local time on
March 1, 2006 (see section B.VII for Agency contact information). Each
EPA Region will review the proposed work plan for base funding and,
where appropriate, recommend improvements to the plan by March 15,
2006. The Tribe must submit a final work plan by April 14, 2006. If a
Tribe has not submitted an approvable work plan for base funding by
April 14, its allocated amount will be added to the competitive pool
which will be used to fund Tribal NPS competitive grants (see section
B).
V. Watershed-Based Plans
EPA strongly encourages Tribes to use section 319 funding for the
development and/or implementation of watershed-based plans to protect
unimpaired waters and restore NPS-impaired waters. EPA also encourages
Tribes to explore the use of other funding such as CWA section 106
funding to support the development of watershed-based plans. EPA
believes that watershed-based plans provide the best means for
preventing and resolving NPS problems and threats. Watershed-based
plans provide a coordinating framework for solving water quality
problems by providing a specific geographic focus, integrating strong
partnerships,
[[Page 2534]]
integrating strong science and data, and coordinating priority setting
and integrated solutions. This section outlines the specific
information that should be included in all watershed-based plans that
are developed or implemented using section 319 funding. This
information correlates with the elements of a watershed-based plan
outlined in the NPS grants guidelines for States (see FY 2004 Nonpoint
Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories,
available at https://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/cwact.html). One significant
difference from the State guidelines is that a watershed-based plan for
Tribes provides for the integration of ``water quality-based goals''
(see element (c) below), whereas the State guidelines call for specific
estimates of load reductions that are expected to be achieved by
implementing the plan. EPA has incorporated this flexibility for Tribes
in recognition that not all Tribes have yet developed water quality
standards and many Tribes may need additional time and/or technical
assistance in order to develop more sophisticated estimates of the NPS
pollutants that need to be addressed. Where such information does
exist, or is later developed, EPA expects that it will be incorporated
as appropriate into the watershed-based plan.
To the extent that information already exists in other documents
(e.g., NPS assessment reports or NPS management programs), the
information may be incorporated by reference into the watershed-based
plan. Thus, the Tribe need not duplicate any existing process or
document that already provides needed information.
1. Components of a Watershed-Based Plan
a. An identification of the causes and sources or groups of similar
sources that will need to be controlled to achieve the goal identified
in element (c) below. Sources that need to be controlled should be
identified at the significant subcategory level with estimates of the
extent to which they are present in the watershed (e.g., X number of
dairy cattle feedlots needing upgrading, including a rough estimate of
the number of cattle per facility; Y acres of row crops needing
improved nutrient management or sediment control; or Z linear miles of
eroded streambank needing remediation).
b. A description of the NPS management measures that will need to
be implemented to achieve a water quality-based goal described in
element (c) below, as well as to achieve other watershed goals
identified in the watershed-based plan, and an identification (using a
map or a description) of the critical areas which those measures will
be needed to implement the plan.
c. An estimate of the water quality-based goals expected to be
achieved by implementing the measures described in element (b) above.
To the extent possible, estimates should identify specific water
quality-based goals, which may incorporate, for example: Load
reductions; water quality standards for one or more pollutants/uses;
NPS total maximum daily load allocations; measurable, in-stream
reductions in a pollutant; or improvements in a parameter that
indicates stream health (e.g., increases in fish or macroinvertebrate
counts). If information is not available to make specific estimates,
water quality-based goals may include narrative descriptions and best
professional judgment based on existing information.
d. An estimate of the amounts of technical and financial assistance
needed, associated costs, and/or the sources and authorities that will
be relied upon to implement the plan. As sources of funding, Tribes
should consider other relevant Federal, State, local and private funds
that may be available to assist in implementing the plan.
e. An information and education component that will be used to
enhance public understanding and encourage early and continued
participation in selecting, designing, and implementing the NPS
management measures that will be implemented.
f. A schedule for implementing the NPS management measures
identified in this plan that is reasonably expeditious.
g. A description of interim, measurable milestones for determining
whether NPS management measures or other control actions are being
implemented.
h. A set of criteria that can be used to determine whether the
water quality-based goals are being achieved over time and substantial
progress is being made towards attaining water quality-based goals and,
if not, the criteria for determining whether the watershed-based plan
needs to be revised.
i. A monitoring component to evaluate the effectiveness of the
implementation efforts over time, measured against the criteria
established under element (h) above.
EPA recognizes the difficulty of developing the information
described above with precision and, as these guidelines reflect,
believes that there must be a balanced approach to address this
concern. On one hand, it is absolutely critical that Tribes make, at
the subcategory level, a reasonable effort to identify the significant
sources; identify the management measures that will most effectively
address those sources; and broadly estimate the expected water quality-
based goals that will be achieved. Without such information to provide
focus and direction, it is much less likely that a project that
implements the plan can efficiently and effectively address the NPSs of
water quality impairments. On the other hand, EPA recognizes that even
with reasonable steps to obtain and analyze relevant data, the
available information at the planning stage (within reasonable time and
cost constraints) may be limited; preliminary information and estimates
may need to be modified over time, accompanied by mid-course
corrections in the watershed plan; and it often will require a number
of years of effective implementation to achieve the goals. EPA fully
intends that the watershed planning process described above should be
implemented in a dynamic and iterative manner to assure that projects
implementing the plan may proceed even though some of the information
in the watershed plan is imperfect and may need to be modified over
time as information improves.
2. Scale and Scope of Watershed-Based Plans
The watershed-based plan should address a large enough geographic
area so that its implementation addresses all of the significant
sources and causes of impairments and threats to the waterbody in
question. EPA recognizes that many Tribes may face jurisdictional
limitations outside reservation boundaries. To the extent possible, EPA
encourages Tribes to engage other partners and include mixed ownership
watersheds when appropriate to solve the water quality problems (e.g.,
Tribal, Federal, State, and private lands). While there is no rigorous
definition or delineation for this concept, the general intent is to
avoid single segments or other narrowly defined areas that do not
provide an opportunity for addressing a watershed's stressors in a
rational and economic manner. At the same time, the scale should not be
so large as to minimize the probability of successful implementation.
Once a watershed-based plan that contains the information
identified above has been established, it can be used as the foundation
for preparing annual work plans. Like the NPS management program
approved under section 319(b), a watershed-based plan may be a multi-
year planning document. Whereas the NPS management program
[[Page 2535]]
provides overall program guidance to address NPS pollution on Tribal
lands, a watershed-based plan focuses NPS planning on a particular
watershed identified as a priority in the NPS management program. Due
to the greater specificity of a watershed-based plan, it will generally
have considerably more detail than a NPS management program, and
identified portions may be implemented through highly specific annual
work plans. While the watershed-based plan can be considered a subset
of the NPS management program, the annual work plan can be considered a
subset of the watershed-based plan.
A Tribe may choose to implement the watershed-based plan in
prioritized portions (e.g., based on particular segments, other
geographic subdivisions, NPS categories in the watershed, or specific
pollutants or impairments), consistent with the schedule established
pursuant to item (f) above. In doing so, Tribes may submit annual work
plans for section 319 grant funding that implement specific portions of
the watershed-based plan. A watershed-based plan is a strategic plan
for long-term success; annual work plans are the specific ``to-do
lists'' to achieve that long-term success.
VI. Base Grant Requirements
1. Performance Partnership Grants
Performance Partnership Grants (PPG) enable Tribes to combine funds
from more than one environmental program grant into a single grant with
a single budget. If the Tribe includes the section 319 grant as a part
of an approved PPG, the match requirement may be reduced to 5 percent
of the allowable cost of the work plan budget for the first 2 years in
which the Tribe receives a PPG; after 2 years, the match may be
increased up to 10 percent of the work plan budget (as determined by
the Regional Administrator). (See 40 CFR 35.536).
A section 319 base grant awarded under this notice should not be
included in a PPG unless the work plan upon which a decision is made to
award the grant is included in the PPG. If a proposed PPG work plan
differs significantly from the section 319 work plan approved for
funding, the Regional Administrator must consult with the National
Program Manager. (See 40 CFR 35.535). The purpose of this requirement
is to avoid any potential that the project will not ultimately be
implemented once commingled with other grant programs in a PPG.
2. Intertribal Consortia
Some Tribes have formed intertribal consortia to promote
cooperative work. An intertribal consortium is a partnership between
two or more Tribes that is authorized by the governing bodies of those
Tribes to apply for and receive assistance under this program. (See 40
CFR 35.502.) Individual Tribes who are a part of an intertribal
consortia that is awarded a section 319 base grant may not also be
awarded an individual section 319 base grant. (Note that individual
Tribes may still be eligible to apply for competitive funds described
below in Section B if they do not also submit a proposal for
competitive funds as part of an intertribal consortium.) The
intertribal consortium is eligible only if the consortium demonstrates
that all its members meet the eligibility requirements for the section
319 program and authorize the consortium to apply for and receive
assistance in accordance with 40 CFR 35.504. An intertribal consortium
must submit to EPA adequate documentation of the existence of the
partnership and the authorization of the consortium by its members to
apply for and receive the grant. (See 40 CFR 35.504.)
3. Non-Tribal Lands
The following discussion explains the extent to which section 319
grants may be awarded to Tribes for use outside the reservation. We
discuss two types of off-reservation activities: (1) Activities that
are related to waters within a reservation, such as those relating to
sources upstream of a waterway entering the reservation; and (2)
activities that are unrelated to waters of a reservation. As discussed
below, the first type of these activities may be eligible; the second
is not.
a. Activities That Are Related to Waters Within a Reservation
Section 518(e) of the CWA provides that EPA may treat an Indian
Tribe as a State for purposes of section 319 of the CWA if, among other
things, ``the functions to be exercised by the Indian Tribe pertain to
the management and protection of water resources which are * * * within
the borders of an Indian reservation'' (see 33 U.S.C. 1377(e)(2)). EPA
already awards grants to Tribes under section 106 of the CWA for
activities performed outside of a reservation (on condition that the
Tribe obtains any necessary access agreements and coordinates with the
State, as appropriate) that pertain to reservation waters, such as
evaluating impacts of upstream waters on water resources within a
reservation. Similarly, EPA has awarded section 106 grants to States to
conduct monitoring outside of State borders. EPA has concluded that
grants awarded to an Indian Tribe pursuant to section 319 may similarly
be used to perform eligible section 319 activities outside of a
reservation if: (1) The activity pertains to the management and
protection of waters within a reservation; and (2) just as for on-
reservation activities, the Tribe meets all other applicable
requirements.
b. Activities That Are Unrelated to Waters of a Reservation
As discussed above, EPA is authorized to award section 319 grants
to Tribes to perform eligible section 319 activities if the activities
pertain to the management and protection of waters within a reservation
and the Tribe meets all other applicable requirements. In contrast, EPA
is not authorized to award section 319 grants for activities that do
not pertain to waters of a reservation. For off-reservation areas,
including ``usual and accustomed'' hunting, fishing, and gathering
places, EPA must determine whether the activities pertain to waters of
a reservation prior to awarding a grant.
4. Administrative Costs
Pursuant to CWA section 319(h)(12), administrative costs in the
form of salaries, overhead, or indirect costs for services provided and
charged against activities and programs carried out with the grant
shall not exceed 10 percent of the grant award. The costs of
implementing enforcement and regulatory activities, education,
training, technical assistance, demonstration projects, and technology
transfer are not subject to this limitation.
5. Satisfactory Progress
For a Tribe (or intertribal consortium) that received section 319
funds in the preceding fiscal year, section 319(h)(8) of the CWA
requires that the Region determine whether the Tribe made
``satisfactory progress'' during the previous fiscal year in meeting
the schedule of activities specified in its approved NPS management
program. The Region will base this determination on an examination of
Tribal activities, reports, reviews, and other documents and
discussions with the Tribe in the previous year. Regions must include
in each section 319 base funding allocation (or in a separate document,
such as the grant-issuance cover letter, that is signed by the same EPA
official who signs the grant), a written determination that the Tribe
has made satisfactory progress during the previous fiscal year in
meeting the schedule of milestones
[[Page 2536]]
specified in its NPS management program. The Regions must include brief
explanations that support their determinations.
VII. Technical Assistance to Tribes
In addition to providing NPS grant funding to Tribes, EPA remains
committed to providing continued technical assistance to Tribes in
their efforts to control NPS pollution. During the past nine years, EPA
has presented many workshops to Tribes nationwide to assist them in
developing: (1) NPS assessments to further their understanding of NPS
pollution and its impact on water quality; (2) NPS management programs
to apply solutions to address their NPS problems; and (3) specific
projects to effect on-the-ground solutions. The workshops have provided
information on related EPA and other programs that can help Tribes
address NPSs, including the provision of technical and funding
assistance. Other areas of technical assistance include watershed-based
planning, water quality monitoring, section 305(b) reports on water
quality, and section 303(d) lists of impaired waters. EPA intends to
continue providing NPS workshops to interested Tribes in FY 2006 and to
provide other appropriate technical assistance as needed. EPA also
intends to include special emphasis in the workshops on the development
and implementation of watershed-based plans that are designed to
address on-the-ground water quality improvements.
VIII. Anticipated Deadlines and Milestones for FY 2006 Base Grants
Date for Tribes to be eligible for 319 grants. October 14, 2005.
Tribes submit base grant initial application to Region. March 1,
2006 (anticipated).
Region comments on Tribe's base grant work plan. March 15, 2006
(anticipated).
Tribes submit final base grant work plan to Region. April 14, 2006
(anticipated).
Tribes submit final grant application to Region. June 5, 2006
(anticipated).
Other than the date EPA will use to determine eligibility to
receive 319 grants, the dates above are the anticipated dates for those
actions.
IX. Anticipated Deadlines and Milestones for FY 2007 Base Grants
Beginning in FY 2007, the schedule for submitting work plans and
awarding section 319 base grants will be modified to expedite the grant
awards process. These modifications are intended to ensure that award
decisions are made earlier in the fiscal year to provide adequate time
for Tribes to implement projects within the applicable fiscal year.
Date for Tribes to be eligible for 319 grants. October 13, 2006.
Tribes submit base grant initial application to Region. December 1,
2006 (anticipated).
Region comments on Tribe's base grant work plan. December 15, 2006
(anticipated).
Tribes submit final base grant work plan to Region. January 16,
2007 (anticipated).
Tribes submit final grant application to Region. April 5, 2007
(anticipated).
Other than the date EPA will use to determine eligibility to
receive 319 grants, the dates above are the anticipated dates for those
actions.
Section B. Request for Proposals From Indian Tribes for Competitive
Grants under Clean Water Act Section 319 in FY 2006 (Funding
Opportunity Number EPA-OW-OWOW-06-2)
I. Funding Opportunity Description for Competitive Grants
This RFP is issued pursuant to section 319(h) of the Clean Water
Act (CWA). Section 319 of the CWA authorizes EPA to award grants to
eligible Tribes for the purpose of assisting them in implementing
approved nonpoint source (NPS) management programs developed pursuant
to section 319(b). The primary goal of the NPS management program is to
control NPS pollution through implementation of management measures and
practices to reduce pollutant loadings resulting from each category or
subcategory of NPSs identified in the Tribe's NPS assessment report
developed pursuant to section 319(a). EPA has set aside a portion of
the section 319 funds appropriated by Congress for competitive grant
awards to Tribes for the purpose of funding: (1) The development of
watershed-based plans; and/or (2) the implementation of watershed
projects that implement a watershed-based plan; and/or (3) the
implementation of other watershed projects not implementing a
watershed-based plan. Tribes are strongly encouraged to submit
proposals that develop and/or implement watershed-based plans designed
to protect unimpaired waters and restore NPS-impaired waters.
Grants awarded under this RFP will advance the protection and
improvement of water quality in support of Goal 2 (Clean and Safe
Water), Objective 2 (Protect Water Quality), Sub-objective 1 (Protect
and Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis) of EPA's Strategic Plan
(see https://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/plan.htm). In support of Sub-
objective 2.2.1, and consistent with EPA Order 5700.7 on Environmental
Results under EPA Assistance Agreements (see https://www.epa.gov/ogd/
grants/award/5700.7.pdf), grants awarded under this RFP will be
expected to accomplish various environmental outcomes and outputs as
described below. Applicants must discuss anticipated environmental
outcomes and outputs in proposed work plan objectives and performance
measures.
Expected environmental outcomes mean the result, effect, or
consequence that will occur from carrying out an environmental program
or activity that is related to an environmental or programmatic goal or
objective. Outcomes may be environmental, behavioral, health-related or
programmatic in nature, must be quantitative, and may not necessarily
be achieved within an assistance agreement funding period. Examples of
outcomes from the grants to be awarded under this RFP may include but
are not limited to: an increased number of NPS-impaired waterbodies
that have been partially or fully restored to meet water quality
standards or other water quality-based goals established by the Tribes;
and/or an increased number of waterbodies that have been protected from
NPS pollution.
Expected environmental outputs (or deliverables) refer to an
environmental activity, effort, and/or associated work product related
to an environmental goal or objective, that will be produced or
provided over a period of time or by a specified date. Outputs may be
quantitative or qualitative but must be measurable during an assistance
agreement funding period. Examples of environmental outputs under the
grants awarded under this RFP may include but are not limited to: a
watershed-based plan, progress reports, or a particular number of on-
the-ground management measures or practices installed or implemented
during the project period. Including the environmental output of a
watershed-based plan furthers progress towards achieving the specific
indicator measure for Sub-objective 2.2.1 in EPA's Strategic Plan which
measures the number of Tribes that have developed and begun to
implement a watershed-based plan for Tribal waters (see Measure WQ-28,
EPA's National Water Program Guidance for FY 2006 at https://
www.epa.gov/water/waterplan/#nwp06).
[[Page 2537]]
II. Award Information
In FY 2005, EPA awarded approximately $4.2 million to 31 Tribes for
specific watershed projects through a competitive process. EPA expects
that the amount of competitive funding available in FY 2006 will be
similar or slightly lower than the amount available in FY 2005, since
the availability of competitive funding is dependent, in part, upon the
amount of funding that remains after a portion is first distributed as
base grants to all eligible Tribes (which may increase due to
additional Tribes entering the NPS program).
EPA anticipates awarding approximately 30 competitive grants,
subject to availability of funds and the quality of applications
submitted under this RFP. Eligible Tribes may apply for competitive
funding by submitting a proposal up to a maximum budget of $150,000 of
federal section 319 funding (plus the additional required match of the
total project cost). Proposals evaluated, but not selected for this
funding, may be retained for consideration for possible future awards
if additional funding materializes. Any additional selections for award
under this RFP based on additional funding will be in accordance with
the rankings developed by the review Committee (discussed below in
section B.V.2) and must be made within six months of the original
competitive funding decisions.
EPA reserves the right to make partial awards by funding discrete
activities, portions, or phases of the proposal. If EPA decides to
partially fund the proposal, it will do so in a manner that does not
prejudice any applicants or affect the basis upon which the proposal/
application, or portion thereof, was evaluated and selected for award,
and that maintains the integrity of the competition and the evaluation/
selection process.
III. Eligibility Information
1. Eligible Applicants
To be eligible for NPS grants, a Tribe or intertribal consortium
must: (1) Be federally recognized; (2) have an approved NPS assessment
report in accordance with CWA section 319(a); (3) have an approved NPS
management program in accordance with CWA section 319(b); and (4) have
``treatment-as-a-state'' (TAS) status in accordance with CWA section
518(e). To be eligible for NPS grants in FY 2006, Tribes must meet
these eligibility requirements as of October 14, 2005.
Some Tribes have formed intertribal consortia to promote
cooperative work. An intertribal consortium is a partnership between
two or more Tribes that is authorized by the governing bodies of those
Tribes to apply for and receive assistance under this program. (See 40
CFR 35.502.) Individual Tribes who are a part of an intertribal
consortia that is awarded a section 319 competitive grant may not also
be awarded an individual section competitive 319 grant. (Note that
individual Tribes may still be eligible to apply for base funds
described above in Section A if they do not also submit a proposal for
base funds as part of an intertribal consortium.)
The intertribal consortium is eligible only if the consortium
demonstrates that all its members meet the eligibility requirements for
the section 319 program and authorize the consortium to apply for and
receive assistance in accordance with 40 CFR 35.504. An intertribal
consortium must submit to EPA adequate documentation of the existence
of the partnership and the authorization of the consortium by its
members to apply for and receive the grant. (See 40 CFR 35.504.)
2. Cost Sharing or Matching
Section 319(h)(3) of the CWA requires that the match for NPS grants
is 40 percent of the total project cost. In general, as required in 40
CFR 31.24, the match requirement can be satisfied by any of the
following: Allowable costs incurred by the grantee, subgrantee, or a
cost-type contractor, including those allowable costs borne by non-
federal grants; by cash donations from non-federal third parties; or by
the value of third party in-kind contributions.
EPA's regulations also provide that EPA may decrease the match
requirement to as low as ten percent if the Tribe can demonstrate in
writing to the Regional Administrator that fiscal circumstances within
the Tribe or within each Tribe that is a member of the intertribal
consortium are constrained to such an extent that fulfilling the match
requirement would impose undue hardship. (See 40 CFR 35.635.) In making
grant awards to Tribes that provide for a reduced match requirement,
Regions must include a brief finding in the final award package that
the Tribe has demonstrated that it does not have adequate funds to meet
the required match.
Performance Partnership Grants (PPG) enable Tribes to combine funds
from more than one environmental program grant into a single grant with
a single budget. If the Tribe includes the section 319 competitive
grant as a part of an approved PPG, the match requirement may be
reduced to 5 percent of the allowable cost of the work plan budget for
the first 2 years in which the Tribe receives a PPG; after 2 years, the
match may be increased up to 10 percent of the work plan budget (as
determined by the Regional Administrator). (See 40 CFR 35.536).
A section 319 grant awarded under this RFP should not be included
in a PPG unless the work plan upon which a decision is made to award
the competitive grant is included in the PPG. If a proposed PPG work
plan differs significantly from the section 319 work plan approved for
funding under this RFP, the Regional Administrator must consult with
the National Program Manager. (See 40 CFR 35.535). The purpose of this
requirement is to avoid any potential that the project will not
ultimately be implemented once commingled with other grant programs in
a PPG.
3. Threshold Evaluation Criteria
In addition to applicant eligibility and cost-share (discussed
above in sections B.III.1 and B.III.2, respectively), all of the
following additional threshold evaluation criteria must be met in order
for a Tribe's application to be evaluated under section B.V and be
considered for award.
a. An individual Tribe (or intertribal consortium) may not be
awarded competitive funding for more than one competitive grant
proposal in a given year.
b. An individual Tribe (or intertribal consortium) may apply for
competitive funding by submitting a proposal up to a maximum budget of
$150,000 of federal section 319 funding (plus the additional required
match of the total project cost). If a Tribe submits a proposal that
exceeds $150,000 (of federal section 319 funding), it will be rejected
from further consideration.
c. All applications must propose to fund activities that are
related to waters within a reservation or they will be rejected.
Section 319 grants may be awarded to Tribes for use outside the
reservation only if they fund activities that are related to waters
within a reservation, such as those relating to sources upstream of a
waterway entering the reservation.
i. Activities That Are Related to Waters Within a Reservation
Section 518(e) of the CWA provides that EPA may treat an Indian
Tribe as a State for purposes of section 319 of the CWA if, among other
things, ``the functions to be exercised by the Indian Tribe pertain to
the management and protection of water resources which are * * * within
the borders of an Indian reservation'' (see 33 U.S.C. 1377(e)(2)).
[[Page 2538]]
EPA already awards grants to Tribes under section 106 of the CWA for
activities performed outside of a reservation (on condition that the
Tribe obtains any necessary access agreements and coordinates with the
State, as appropriate) that pertain to reservation waters, such as
evaluating impacts of upstream waters on water resources within a
reservation. Similarly, EPA has awarded section 106 grants to States to
conduct monitoring outside of State borders. EPA has concluded that
grants awarded to an Indian Tribe pursuant to section 319 may similarly
be used to perform eligible section 319 activities outside of a
reservation if: (1) The activity pertains to the management and
protection of waters within a reservation; and (2) just as for on-
reservation activities, the Tribe meets all other applicable
requirements.
ii. Activities That Are Unrelated to Waters of a Reservation
As discussed above, EPA is authorized to award section 319 grants
to Tribes to perform eligible section 319 activities if the activities
pertain to the management and protection of waters within a reservation
and the Tribe meets all other applicable requirements. In contrast, EPA
is not authorized to award section 319 grants for activities that do
not pertain to waters of a reservation. For off-reservation areas,
including ``usual and accustomed'' hunting, fishing, and gathering
places, EPA must determine whether the activities pertain to waters of
a reservation prior to awarding a grant.
d. All work plans must be consistent with the Tribe's approved NPS
management program and conform to legal requirements that are
applicable to all environmental program grants awarded to Tribes (see
40 CFR 35.505 and 35.507) as well as the legal requirements that
specifically apply to NPS management grants (see 40 CFR 35.638). As
provided in those regulations, all proposed work plans must include:
i. Description of each significant category of NPS activity to
be addressed;
ii. Work plan components;
iii. Work plan commitments for each work plan component,
including anticipated environmental outcomes and outputs (as
required by EPA Order 5700.7) and the applicant's plan for tracking
and measuring its progress towards achieving the expected outcomes
and outputs identified in Section B.I of this RFP;
iv. Estimated funding amounts for each work plan component;
v. Estimated work years for each work plan component;
vi. Roles and responsibilities of the recipient and EPA in
carrying out the work plan commitments; and
vii. Reporting schedule and a description of the performance
evaluation process that will be used that accounts for: (a) A
discussion of accomplishments as measured against work plan
commitments and anticipated environmental outcomes and outputs; (b)
a discussion of the cumulative effectiveness of the work performed
under all work plan components; (c) a discussion of existing and
potential problem areas; and (d) suggestions for improvement,
including, where feasible, schedules for making improvements.
IV. Application and Submission Information
EPA will respond to questions from individual applicants regarding
threshold eligibility criteria, administrative issues related to the
submission of the proposal/application, and requests for clarification
about the announcement. Questions must be submitted before February 15,
2006 in writing to the appropriate EPA Regional Tribal NPS Coordinator
and written responses will be posted on EPA's Web site at: https://
www.epa.gov/owow/nps/tribal. In accordance with EPA's Competition
Policy (EPA Order 5700.5A1), EPA staff will not meet with individual
applicants to discuss draft proposals, provide informal comments on
draft proposals, or provide advice to applicants on how to respond to
ranking criteria. Applicants are responsible for the contents of their
applications.
1. Address To Request Application Package
Applicants may download individual grant application forms, or
electronically request a paper application package and an accompanying
computer CD of information related to applicants/grant recipients roles
and responsibilities from EPA's Grants Web site by visiting: https://
www.epa.gov/ogd/grants/how_to_apply.htm. Applicants may also apply
electronically through https://www.grants.gov as explained below.
2. Content and Form of Application Submission
Please note that only the one-page Standard Form 424 needs to be
included in the initial application, along with the work plan narrative
described in this RFP. If your application is selected, the entire
grants package will need to be completed by June 5, 2006.
a. Signed Standard Form 424 (one page)
b. Narrative Work Plan
Tribes must submit a work plan following the required outline above
in section B.III.3.d to be considered for competitive funding for FY
2006.
3. Submission Dates and Times for Proposals for Competitive Funding
You may submit either a paper proposal or an electronic proposal
through https://www.grants.gov (but not both) for this announcement. If
you submit a paper application, the appropriate EPA Regional Tribal NPS
Coordinator must receive the SF 424 and proposed work plan described
above for competitive funding by 5 p.m. local time on March 1, 2006
(see section B.VII for Agency contact information). If you submit your
application electronically through https://www.grants.gov, you must meet
the requirements for electronic submission outlined in section B.IV.6
below and your proposal must be received through https://www.grants.gov
no later than 11:59 p.m. on March 1, 2006. Any application packages
received after the due date will not be considered for funding.
4. Funding Restrictions
The use of competitive funding for the development of a watershed-
based plan will be limited to 20 percent of the competitive award
(e.g., up to $30,000 of a $150,000 grant) to assure that these
competitive funds are primarily focused on implementation activities.
If a Tribe submits a work plan to develop a watershed-based plan, it
must be submitted as a component of the overall work plan for
implementing a watershed project (i.e., a Tribe will not receive
competitive funding only for the development of a watershed-based
plan).
5. Confidential Business Information
In accordance with 40 CFR 2.203, applicants may claim all or a
portion of their application/proposal as confidential business
information. EPA will evaluate confidentiality claims in accordance
with 40 CFR Part 2. Applicants must clearly mark applications/proposals
or portions of applications/proposals they claim as confidential. If no
claim of confidentiality is made, EPA is not required to make the
inquiry to the applicant otherwise required by 40 CFR 2.204(c)(2) prior
to disclosure.
6. Submission Instructions for Electronic Applications Using Grants.gov
In lieu of hard copy submission, you may submit the proposal
described above electronically through https://www.grants.gov as
explained below. The electronic submission of your proposal
[[Page 2539]]
must be made by an official representative of your institution who is
registered with Grants.gov. For more information, go to https://
www.grants.gov and click on ``Get Started,'' and then ``For AORs''
(Authorized Organizational Representative) on the left side of the
page. Note that the registration process may take a week or longer to
complete. If your organization is not currently registered with
Grants.gov, please encourage your office to designate an AOR and ask
that individual to begin the registration process as soon as possible.
To begin the application process for this grant program, go to
https://www.grants.gov and click on ``Apply for Grants.'' Then click on
``Apply Step 1: Download a Grant Application Package and Application
Instructions'' to download the PureEdge viewer and obtain the
application package (https://www.apply.grants.gov/forms_apps_
idx.html). You may retrieve the application package by entering either
the CFDA number of 66.460 or Funding Opportunity Number EPA-OW-OWOW-06-
2 in the space provided. You may also be able to access the application
package by clicking on the button at the bottom right side of the
synopsis on https://www.grants.gov that says ``Apply for Grants
Electronically.''
Your organization's AOR must submit your complete proposal
electronically to EPA through Grants.gov (https://www.grants.gov) no
later than 11:59 p.m. on March 1, 2006. The application package must
include the following materials:
a. Signed Standard Form 424
Complete the form. There are no attachments. Please be sure to
include organization fax number and e-mail address in Block 5 of the
Standard Form 424.
b. Narrative Work Plan
The work plan must include the minimum components set forth in
section B.III.3.d of this RFP and will be evaluated based on the
selection criteria set forth below in section B.V.1 of this
announcement. Applicants who elect to use https://www.grants.gov to
apply will need to refer to section B.III.3.d of this RFP when
preparing the work plan.
Documents a and b listed above should appear in the ``Mandatory
Documents'' box on the Grants.gov Grant Application page.
For Document a, click on the SF424 form and then click ``Open
Form'' below the box. The fields that must be completed will be
highlighted in yellow. Optional fields and completed fields will be
displayed in white. If you enter an invalid response or incomplete
information in a field, you will receive an error message. When you
have finished filling out the form, click ``Save.'' When you return to
the electronic Grant Application Package page, click on the form you
just completed, and then click on the box that says, ``Move Form to
Submission List.'' This action will move the document over to the box
that says, ``Mandatory Completed Documents for Submission.''
For document b, you will need to attach electronic files containing
the information required by section B.III.3.d of this RFP. Prepare your
work plan and save it to your computer as an MS Word, PDF, or
WordPerfect file. When you are ready to attach your work plan to the
application package, click on ``Project Narrative Attachment Form,''
and open the form. Click ``Add Mandatory Project Narrative File,'' and
then attach your work plan (previously saved to your computer) using
the browse window that appears. You may then click ``View Mandatory
Project Narrative File Filename;'' the file name should be no more than
40 characters long. If there are other attachments that you would like
to submit to accompany your proposal, you may click ``Add Optional
Project Narrative File'' and proceed as before. When you have finished
attaching the necessary documents, click ``Close Form.'' When you
return to the ``Grant Application Package'' page, select the ``Project
Narrative Attachment Form'' and click ``Move Form to Submission List.''
The form should now appear in the box that says, ``Mandatory Completed
Documents for Submission.''
Once you have finished filling out all of the forms/attachments and
they appear in one of the ``Completed Documents for Submission'' boxes,
click the ``Save'' button that appears at the top of the Web page. It
is suggested that you save the document a second time, using a
different name, since this will make it easier to submit an amended
package later if necessary. Please use the following format when saving
your file: ``Applicant Name--FY06 Tribal 319 Competitive Grants--1st
Submission'' or ``Applicant Name--FY06 Tribal 319 Competitive Grants--
Back-up Submission.'' If it becomes necessary to submit an amended
package at a later date, then the name of the 2nd submission should be
changed to ``Applicant Name--FY06 Tribal 319 Competitive Grants--2nd
Submission.''
Once your application package has been completed and saved, send it
to your AOR for submission to U.S. EPA through Grants.gov. Please
advise your AOR to close all other software programs before attempting
to submit the application package through Grants.gov.
In the ``Application Filing Name'' box, your AOR should enter your
organization's name (abbreviate where possible), the fiscal year (e.g.,
FY06), and the grant category (e.g., Tribal 319 Grants). The filing
name should not exceed 40 characters. From the ``Grant Application
Package'' page, your AOR may submit the application package by clicking
the ``Submit'' button that appears at the top of the page. The AOR will
then be asked to verify the agency and funding opportunity number for
which the application package is being submitted. If problems are
encountered during the submission process, the AOR should reboot his/
her computer before trying to submit the application package again. [It
may be necessary to turn off the computer (not just restart it) before
attempting to submit the package again.] If the AOR continues to
experience submission problems, he/she may contact Grants.gov for
assistance by phone at 1-800-518-4726 or e-mail at support@grants.gov.
If you have not received a confirmation of receipt from EPA (not
from support@grant.gov) within 30 days of the application deadline,
please contact the appropriate EPA Regional Tribal NPS Coordinator
identified in section B.VII below. Failure to do so may result in your
application not being reviewed.
V. Application Review Information
1. Selection Criteria for Competitive Grants
Tribes submitting proposals for competitive grants must comply with
all of the threshold evaluation criteria described in section B.III.3
in order to be considered for further evaluation under this section.
The EPA Regional Tribal NPS Coordinator will determine whether the
proposals comply with the threshold evaluation criteria, and will
forward proposals that do to EPA Headquarters NPS Control Branch for
distribution to EPA's Watershed Project Review Committee. Proposals
that do not comply with the threshold evaluation criteria will be
rejected and not evaluated under this section.
EPA's Watershed Project Review Committee will evaluate proposals by
assigning a value of 0 to 5 (with 5 being highest) for each factor
described below based upon how well the following list of specific
elements are represented in the work plan. Each factor has been
assigned a specific weight which will be
[[Page 2540]]
multiplied (by a value of 0-5) to calculate a total point score for the
particular factor. The scores for each factor are then combined to
result in a total score for the overall work plan--the total maximum
score available is 900.
EPA's Watershed Project Review Committee will evaluate proposals
for competitive grants based upon the following evaluation factors (and
corresponding weights):
a. The extent, and quality, to which the subcategories of NPS
pollution are identified and described. (Weight = 20; 100 points
maximum.)
The work plan will be evaluated based upon the extent, and quality,
to which it identifies each significant subcategory of NPS pollution.
Since identifying the categories of NPS pollution (e.g., agriculture)
is a threshold evaluation criteria, the proposed work plan will be
evaluated based upon how well it identifies sources at the subcategory
level with estimates of the extent to which these subcategories are
present in the watershed (e.g., X number of dairy cattle feedlots
needing upgrading, including a rough estimate of the number of cattle
per facility; Y acres of row crops needing improved nutrient management
or sediment control; or Z linear miles of eroded streambank needing
remediation).
b. The extent, and quality, to which the water quality problems or
threats to be addressed are identified and described. (Weight = 20; 100
points maximum.)
The work plan will be evaluated based upon the extent, and quality,
to which it identifies each water quality problem or threat to be
addressed caused by the subcategories of NPS pollution identified in
evaluation factor (a) above. EPA encourages Tribes to incorporate
specific descriptions of water quality problems or threats, for
example, in relation to impairments to water quality standards or other
parameters that indicate stream health (e.g., decreases in fish or
macroinvertebrate counts).
c. The extent, and quality, to which the goals and objectives of
the project specifically identify the project location and activities
to be implemented. (Weight = 20; 100 points maximum.)
The work plan will be evaluated based upon how well it specifically
identifies where the NPS project will take place and the waterbody
affected by the NPS pollutants (provides map); and the level of detail
provided in relation to the specific activities that will be implement
(e.g., identifies specific management measures and practices to be
implemented).
d. The extent to which significant water quality benefits will be
achieved as a result of the project. (Weight = 20; 100 points maximum.)
The work plan will be evaluated based upon the extent to which it
describes how significant water quality benefits will be achieved as a
result of the project, either through restoring NPS-impaired waters or
addressing threats to unimpaired waters. EPA encourages Tribes to
incorporate specific water quality-based goals that are linked to: Load
reductions; water quality standards for one or more pollutants/uses;
NPS total maximum daily load allocations; measurable, in-stream
reductions in a pollutant; or improvements in a parameter that
indicates stream health (e.g., increases in fish or macroinvertebrate
counts). If information is not available to make specific estimates,
water quality-based goals may include narrative descriptions and best
professional judgment based on existing information.
e. The specificity of the budget in relation to each work plan
component. (Weight = 15; 75 points maximum.)
The work plan will be evaluated based upon the level of specificity
of the budget in relation to each work plan component, and the extent
to which it outlines the total operational and construction costs of
the project (including match). Budget categ