[Federal Register: February 12, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 29)]
[Notices]
[Page 6978-6982]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12fe04-55]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-7622-3]
Notice of Request for Initial Proposals (IP) for Projects To Be
Funded From the Water Quality Cooperative Agreement Allocation (CFDA
66.463--Water Quality Cooperative Agreements)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA Region 6 is soliciting Initial Proposals (IP) from State
water pollution control agencies, interstate agencies, other public or
nonprofit agencies, institutions, organizations, and other entities as
defined by the Clean Water Act (CWA), interested in applying for
Federal assistance for Water Quality Cooperative Agreements under the
CWA section 104(b)(3) in the states of Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico,
Oklahoma and Texas. Region 6 EPA intends to award an estimated $1
million to eligible applicants through assistance agreements ranging in
size, on average, from $40,000 up to $200,000 (Federal) for innovative
projects/demonstrations/studies that can be used as models relating to
the prevention, reduction, and elimination of water pollution. From the
IPs received, EPA estimates up to 8 to 10 projects may be selected to
submit full applications. The Agency reserves the right to reject all
IPs and make no awards. A Request for Proposals for Tribal governments
will be issued under a separate notice.
DATES: EPA will consider all proposals received on or before 5 p.m.
central standard time April 12, 2004. IPs received after the due date
will not be considered for funding.
ADDRESSES: IPs should be mailed to: Terry Mendiola (6WQ-AT), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Water Quality Protection
Division, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Overnight
Delivery may be sent to the same address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Mendiola by telephone at 214-
665-7144 or by e-mail at mendiola.teresita@epa.gov.
Required Overview Content:
Federal Agency Name--Environmental Protection Agency, Water Quality
Division, State Tribal Programs Section.
Funding Opportunity Title--Water Quality Cooperative Agreements.
Announcement Type--Initial announcement.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number--CFDA
[[Page 6979]]
66.463--Water Quality Cooperative Agreements
Dates--April 12, 2004--Proposals due to EPA.
June 11, 2004--Initial approvals identified and sponsors of
projects selected for funding will be requested to submit a formal
application package.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Funding Opportunity Description
EPA Region 6's Water Quality Protection Division is requesting
proposals from State water pollution control agencies, interstate
agencies, other public or nonprofit agencies, institutions,
organizations, and other entities as defined by the CWA for unique and
innovative projects that address the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program with special emphasis on
concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO) permitting, watershed
integration through NPDES, and homeland security, as well as, water
quality studies relating to water quality standards, monitoring and
assessment, ecoregion and subregion delineation, harmful algal blooms,
and biological criteria.
Funding is authorized under the provisions of the CWA section
104(b)(3), 33 U.S.C.1254(b)(3). The regulations governing the award and
administration of Water Quality Cooperative Agreements are in 40 CFR
part 30 (for institutions of higher learning, hospitals, and other
nonprofit organizations) and 40 CFR part 31 (for States, local
governments, and interstate agencies).
An organization whose IP is selected for possible Federal
assistance must complete an EPA Application for Assistance, including
the Federal SF-424 form (Application for Federal Assistance, see 40 CFR
30.12 and 31.10).
High Priority Areas for Funding Consideration
WQCAs awarded under section 104(b)(3) may only be used to conduct
and promote the coordination and acceleration of activities such as
research, investigations, experiments, training, education,
demonstrations, surveys, and studies relating to the causes, effects,
extent, prevention, reduction, and elimination of water pollution.
These activities, while not defined in the statute, advance the state
of knowledge, gather information, or transfer information. For
instance, ``demonstrations'' are generally projects that demonstrate
new or experimental technologies, methods, or approaches and the
results of the project will be disseminated so that others can benefit
from the knowledge gained. A project that is accomplished though the
performance of routine, traditional, or established practices, or a
project that is simply intended to carry out a task rather than
transfer information or advance the state of knowledge, however
worthwhile the project may be, is not a demonstration. Research
projects may include the application of the practices when they
contribute to learning about an environmental concept or problem.
EPA will award WQCAs for research, investigations, experiments,
training, demonstrations, surveys and studies related to the causes,
effects, extent, prevention, reduction, and elimination of water
pollution in the following subject areas:
CAFO Permitting Support
Demonstration of treatment/reuse/disposal technologies and controls
that are designed to reduce CAFO-based nutrients in watersheds, with a
demonstration of amount of loading reductions from those technologies,
e.g., handling phosphorus-rich poultry litter in northwest Arkansas/
northeast Oklahoma; efficacy of wetlands to polish runoff or overflow
from ponds and/or land application processes.
Demonstration of nutrient indicator tracing in CAFO dominated,
nutrient impaired watersheds, e.g., ribo-typing study to determine
source of bacteria and pathogens, or nitrogen-ion study to determine
source of nitrogen in waters, or hormone or antibiotic study to
determine sources of excreted waste material.
Watershed Integration of Water Programs Under the CWA Through NPDES
Development of innovative permit tool(s) supporting watershed-based
permitting activities for specific parameters. Establish a technique
for identifying all dischargers and their respective contribution
levels for parameter(s) of concern within an impaired watershed. Should
determine the overall impact of point and non-point dischargers on
receiving waters. Pollutant data for water quality parameters, such as
nutrients, dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform, etc., could be used in the
development of a model (such as self-implementing general permits) for
permitting activities. The model may incorporate unique permitting
approaches including effluent trading scenarios (in accordance with the
Water Quality Trading Policy, January 13, 2003), which may be
implemented in the general permit for specific water quality
parameters.
Homeland Security for NPDES
Studies of ability of conventional or innovative wastewater
treatment plant processes to effectively treat, remove, or render
harmless biological, chemical, or radiological agents, which could be
introduced into the collection or treatment system.
Development of models for hardening of collection systems, lift
stations, and wastewater treatment plant processes to prevent
introduction of harmful biological, chemical, or radiological agents.
Characterization of Ecological Condition
Estimation of the extent of waters attaining designated beneficial
uses, and determination of causes of impairment, based on a core set of
indicators of ecological condition and environmental stressors.
Biological measures should form the primary basis for assessing
attainment of the aquatic life use with chemical, physical, and
watershed measurements used to assess and rank the relative importance
of stressors.
Nutrient Criteria
Development of effects based nutrient criteria and assessment
methods, based on the relationship(s) between evidence of impairment of
biological integrity, and/or other response indicators, and instream
nutrient concentrations observed at reference waterbodies. Priority
consideration will be given to proposals that also address criteria
development and refinement for other naturally occurring water quality
constituents.
Ecoregion and Subregion Delineation
Ecoregion and subregion delineation providing an improved basis for
waterbody classification, supporting definition of water quality
management goals and expectations, development of water quality
standards, and water quality monitoring and assessment.
Harmful Algal Blooms
Critical research, monitoring necessary to characterize spacial and
temporal extent of blooms, and implementation of measures to manage and
control harmful algal blooms (HABs) in fresh or marine waters using
innovative, cost effective watershed based approaches. HABs include
golden alga (Pyrmnesium parvum), red tide, blue-green algae and brown
algae. Of particular concern is the golden alga, which has established
in numerous river basins in west Texas and New Mexico and has the
potential to spread to other states.
[[Page 6980]]
Development of Biological Criteria for Large Rivers
Development of attainable conditions for biological integrity in
large rivers, where conventional reference waterbody approaches are not
feasible, based on historical aquatic assemblage data from the same or
similar waterbodies, habitat-modeling techniques, or other innovative
approaches.
II. Award Information
Region 6 EPA intends to award an estimated $1 million to eligible
applicants through assistance agreements ranging in size, on average,
from $40,000 up to $200,000 (Federal) for innovative projects/
demonstrations/studies that can be used as models relating to the
prevention, reduction, and elimination of water pollution. From the IPs
received, EPA estimates up to 8 to 10 projects may be selected to
submit full applications. The average size of an award is anticipated
to be approximately $100,000. Awards will be made in the summer of
2004. Typically, the project and budget period for these awards is one
to two years, with an average of about two years. Organizations who
have an existing agreement under this program are eligible to compete
for new awards, including supplementation to existing projects.
It is expected that all the awards under this program will be
cooperative agreements. States and interstate agencies meeting the
requirements in 40 CFR 35.504 may include the funds for WQCA in a
Performance Partnership Grant (PPG) in accordance with the regulations
governing PPGs in 40 CFR part 35, subparts A and B. For states and
interstate agencies that choose to do so, the regulations provide that
the workplan commitments that would have been included in the WQCA must
be included in the PPG workplan.
A description of the Agency's substantial involvement in
cooperative agreements will be included in the final agreement.
III. Eligibility Information
1. Eligible Applicants
Eligible applicants for assistance agreements under section
104(b)(3) of the CWA are State water pollution control agencies,
interstate agencies, other public or nonprofit agencies, institutions,
organizations, and other entities as defined by the CWA in the states
of Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas. IPs received
for projects outside of Region 6 will not be considered.
2. Cost Sharing or Matching
A minimum match of five percent will be required for all approved
projects and should be included in the total funding requested for each
proposal submitted.
3. Other
The specific criteria listed in the Criteria section of V.
Application Review Information can also be considered eligibility
criteria. The IPs will be evaluated by Region 6 in a two phased
approach. Initially, each IP will be evaluated against the specific
criteria listed under the priority area for which it was submitted. In
order for the IP to be considered in the second evaluation phase, it
must address, at a minimum, ALL the specific criteria listed under the
priority area. Once it is determined that all the specific criteria has
been addressed, proposals will be evaluated on how well they address
the specific criteria. Eligible proposals will then be evaluated in the
second phase of the review process.
IV. Application and Submission Information
1. Address To Request Application Package
Full application packages should not be submitted at this time;
Region 6 is only requesting initial proposals. Initial proposal format
and content is included below. Upon notification of final selections,
applicants will be instructed how financial assistance application
packages can be obtained.
2. Proposal Format and Contents
IPs should be no more than three pages with a minimum font size of
10 pitch in Wordperfect/Word or equivalent. Failure to follow the
format or to include all requested information could result in the IP
not being considered for funding. It is recommended that confidential
information not be included in this IP. The following format should be
used for all IPs:
Name of Project:
Priority Area Addressed: Only one priority area should be listed.
If more than one addressed, select best. (i.e., CAFO Permitting
Support, Homeland Security for NPDES, Nutrient Criteria, etc.):
Point of Contact: (Individual and Agency/Organization Name,
Address, Phone Number, Fax Number, E-mail Address)
Is This a Continuation of a Previously Funded Project (if so,
please provide the status of the current grant or cooperative
agreement):
Proposed Federal Amount:
Proposed Non-Federal Match (minimum of 5%): The match is based on
the total project cost not the Federal amount. To determine a proposed
minimum match of 5%, use the following example:
Federal amount = $25,000
Total Project Cost = T
The Federal amount is 95% of T, therefore:
$25,000 = T x 0.95
$25,000/0.95 = T
$26,316 = T (round the decimal)
If the total project cost is $26,316, then:
$26,316 x 0.05 = $1,316 non-Federal match
Proposed Total Award Amount:
Description of General Budget Proposed To Support Project:
Project Description: (Should not exceed two pages of single-spaced
text)
Expected Accomplishments or Product, With Dates, and Interim
Milestones: This section should also include a discussion of a
communication plan for distributing the project results to interested
parties.
Environmental Results and Outcomes:
Describe How the Project Meets the Evaluation Criteria Specified in
Section V. Application Review Information:
3. Submission Dates and Times
This is the estimated schedule of activities for submission, review
of proposals and notification of selections:
April 12, 2004--Proposals due to EPA.
June 11, 2004--Initial approvals identified and sponsors of
projects selected for funding will be requested to submit a formal
application package.
4. Intergovernmental Review
Applicants requested to submit a full application will be required
to comply with Intergovernmental Review requirements (40 CFR part 29).
5. Funding Restrictions
The following information should be considered in developing
proposal(s):
Construction projects, except for the
construction required to carry out a demonstration project, and
acquisition of land are not eligible for funding under this program.
New or on-going programs to implement routine
environmental controls are not eligible for funding under this program.
Although proposals may meet more than one of the
priority areas listed in Section I. Funding Opportunity Description,
select only one and identify that priority area in the proposal format.
It is encouraged that indirect cost be limited
to 15 percent.
[[Page 6981]]
6. Other Submission Requirements
Applicants may submit IPs only in hard copy. EPA will consider all
proposals received on or before 5 p.m. central standard time April 12,
2004. IPs received after the due date will not be considered for
funding. IPs should be mailed to: Terry Mendiola (6WQ-AT), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Water Quality Protection
Division, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Overnight
Delivery may be sent to the same address. Please mail three copies of
the IP(s).
V. Application Review Information
1. Criteria
EPA Region 6 will award WQCA on a competitive basis and evaluate
IPs based on specific and general criteria. EPA Region 6 has identified
several subject areas for priority consideration. To be eligible to
compete for funding, all specific criteria must be addressed/met for
the priority area in which it was submitted (refer to Section III.
Eligibility Information 3).
The following specific criteria will be used to evaluate the
subject priority area:
CAFO Permitting Support, specifically, the demonstration of
treatment/reuse/disposal technologies and controls that are designed to
reduce CAFO-based nutrients in watersheds, with a demonstration of
amount of loading reductions from those technologies, etc. The
following specific criteria will be used to evaluate this priority
area:
Demonstrate treatment/reuse/disposal
technologies and controls through testing and/or modeling.
Report on the efficiencies.
CAFO Permitting Support, specifically, the demonstration of
nutrient indicator tracing in CAFO dominated, nutrient impaired
watersheds, etc. The following specific criteria will be used to
evaluate this priority area:
Demonstrate nutrient indicator tracing in CAFO
dominated, nutrient impaired watersheds, with identification and
differentiation of sources of animal/CAFO wastes from human wastes.
Watershed Integration of Water Programs Under the CWA Through
NPDES, specifically, the development of innovative permit tool(s)
supporting watershed-based permitting activities for specific
parameters, etc. The following specific criteria will be used to
evaluate this priority area:
Include consideration of all waterbodies in a
watershed.
Include consideration of all point sources.
Consider net contribution of non-point sources
in aggregate effects.
Provide aggregate water quality modeling which
determines aggregate effects in the watershed.
Homeland Security for NPDES, specifically, studies of ability of
conventional or innovative wastewater treatment plant processes to
effectively treat, remove, or render harmless biological, chemical, or
radiological agents, which could be introduced into the collection or
treatment system, etc. The following specific criteria will be used to
evaluate this priority area:
Actual performance data of processes vs.
technical predictions of performance.
Enhanced security procedure models and
development of model emergency operating plans.
Characterization of Ecological Condition, specifically, the
estimation of the extent of waters attaining designated beneficial
uses, and determination of causes of impairment, based on a core set of
indicators of ecological condition and environmental stressors, etc.
The following specific criteria will be used to evaluate this priority
area:
Mechanisms to evaluate the interrelationships
between biological assemblages, ambient water chemistry, fish tissue
contaminants, physical habitat, and/or watershed characteristics.
Potential to improve a state's approaches to
make decisions about whether or not water quality standards are being
attained.
Apply a probabilistic approach to site selection
to support estimates of conditions across an entire study area.
Result in the ability to compare environmental
indicator data across state and regional boundaries for ambient and
reference conditions.
Offers the potential to improve a state's
approach to estimate the extent of waterbody impairment statewide.
Results integrated into State 305(b) report.
All data entered into EPA STORET database.
Nutrient Criteria, specifically, the development of effects based
nutrient criteria and assessment methods, based on the relationship(s)
between evidence of impairment of biological integrity, and/or other
response indicators, and instream nutrient concentrations observed at
reference waterbodies. Priority consideration will be given to
proposals that also address criteria development and refinement for
other naturally occurring water quality constituents. The following
specific criteria will be used to evaluate this priority area:
Demonstrate approaches or provide tools that may
be applied in other areas.
Apply the latest scientific approaches or
innovative techniques to establish and validate the relationship(s)
between elevated nutrient concentrations and indicator response.
Result in recommendations for numeric water
quality criteria standards or criteria that can be applied to a class
of waters (rather than individual waters).
Include mechanisms for technology transfer.
All data entered into EPA's STORET database.
Ecoregion and Subregion Delineation, specifically, ecoregion and
subregion delineation providing an improved basis for waterbody
classification, supporting definition of water quality management goals
and expectations, development of water quality standards, and water
quality monitoring and assessment. The following specific criteria will
be used to evaluate this priority area:
Conducted in New Mexico.
High degree of coordination among natural
resource and environmental management agency scientists.
Result in completion of ecoregion and subregion
boundaries and descriptions for an entire state.
Conducted using methods comparable to those
employed in other states by the EPA Office of Research and Development,
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, to
achieve level IV subregionalization.
Result in a nationally consistent set of
subregion management units.
Harmful Algal Blooms, specifically, critical research, monitoring
necessary to characterize spacial and temporal extent of blooms, and
implementation of measures to manage and control harmful algal blooms
(HABs) in fresh or marine waters using innovative, cost effective
watershed based approaches, etc. The following specific criteria will
be used to evaluate this priority area:
Represent a significant step(s) of critical
importance in understanding factors causing algal blooms.
Incorporates both sound proven scientific
methods and innovative approaches in managing and controlling HABs.
Use of monitoring to assess geographic extent
and temporal patterns resulting in a more targeted strategy to manage
and control HABs.
Development of Biological Criteria for Large Rivers, specifically,
the development of attainable conditions for biological integrity in
large rivers, where
[[Page 6982]]
conventional reference waterbody approaches are not feasible, based on
historical aquatic assemblage data from the same or similar
waterbodies, habitat-modeling techniques, or other innovative
approaches. The following specific criteria will be used to evaluate
this priority area:
Results in the development of assessment methods
for narrative water quality standards biocriteria or the adoption of
numeric biocriteria for one or more aquatic assemblages.
Based on sound scientific methods, waterbody
classification approaches, and conventional collection methods that are
practical for use by state environmental agencies.
Yields comparable assessments to those conducted
across state lines and other geopolitical boundaries.
The following general criteria will be used to evaluate each
eligible proposal:
Adequacy of proposal, including the relationship
of the proposed project to the priorities identified in this notice,
innovation of project proposal and level of multi-organizational
support, if needed. (10 points)
Compliance with proposal format/guidance,
including how well the proposal follows the solicitation notice,
clearly defined milestones/schedule and clearly identified
deliverables. (5 points)
Cost effectiveness/likelihood of success of the
proposal, including adequacy of resources committed to project/
realistic budget, realistic implementation schedule and clearly defined
measures of success that are reasonably attainable. (5 points)
Applicant's past performance, if applicable.
(minus (-) 3 points max.)
2. Review and Selection Process
The IPs will be evaluated by regional staff in a two phased
approach. Initially, each IP will be evaluated against the specific
criteria listed under the priority area for which it was submitted. In
order for the IP to be considered in the second evaluation phase, it
must address, at a minimum, ALL the specific criteria listed under the
priority area. Once it is determined that all the specific criteria has
been addressed, proposals will be evaluated on how well they address
the specific criteria for a possible total score of 10 points.
In the second phase, each IP will be evaluated against the general
criteria listed above for a possible total score of 20. Points will be
taken away for poor past performance if knowledge of applicant's past
performance is available to EPA. Points from Phase 1 and 2 will be
added together for a possible total score of 30 points.
Final selection of IPs will be made by the Director of Water
Quality Protection Division, EPA Region 6.
VI. Award Administration Information
1. Award Notices
Selected organizations will be notified in writing and requested to
submit full applications. Applications, including workplans, are
subject to EPA review and approval. It is expected that unsuccessful
applicants will be notified in writing.
2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements
Applicants whose proposals contemplate contracting for services or
products must comply with applicable regulations relating to
competitive procurement and preparation of cost or price analyses in
accordance with 40 CFR 30.40 through 30.48 (for institutions of higher
learning, hospitals, and other nonprofit organizations) and 40 CFR
31.36 (for States, local governments, and interstate agencies).
Identifying a contractor in a proposal does not exempt the applicant
from these requirements. Applicants requested to submit a full
application will be required to confirm compliance with competitive
procurement procedures.
Additionally, applicants requested to submit a full application
will be required to comply with the Quality Assurance requirements (40
CFR 30.54 and 31.45) if projects involve environmentally related
measurements or data generation. Prior to award, a Quality Management
Plan must be submitted and approved by EPA.
Applicants must provide a Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) Data Universal
Numbering System (DUNS) number with the full application. Organizations
may obtain the number by calling, toll free, 1-866-705-5711.
Applicants requested to submit a full application may incur pre-
award costs 90 calendar days prior to award provided such costs are
included in the application, the costs meet the definition of pre-award
costs and are approved by EPA. Pre-award costs are those costs incurred
prior to the effective date of the award directly pursuant to the
negotiation and in anticipation of the award where such costs are
necessary to comply with the proposed delivery schedule or period of
performance and are in conformance with the appropriate statute and
cost principles. The approval of pre-award costs should be reflected in
the budget period on the assistance agreement and if applicable, under
a term and condition of the assistance agreement. Recipients incur pre-
award costs at their own risk (i.e., EPA is under no obligation to
reimburse such costs if for any reason the recipient does not receive
an award or if the award is less than anticipated and inadequate to
cover such costs).
Procedures for dispute resolution process are located in 40 CFR
30.63 and 31.70 apply.
It is encouraged that indirect cost be limited to 15 percent or
less.
3. Reporting
Post award reporting requirements include, at a minimum, submission
of semi-annual project status reports with submission of a final report
prior to the end of the budget/project period. Means of submission and
report format will be negotiated in the workplan.
VII. Agency Contacts
Point of Contact: Terry Mendiola by telephone at 214-665-7144 or by
e-mail at mendiola.teresita@epa.gov.
VIII. Other Information
A list of selected projects will be posted on the Region 6 Water
Quality Protection Division, Assistance Programs Branch Web site http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6wq/at/sttribal.htm.
This Web site may also
contain additional information about this request. Deadline extensions,
if any, will be posted on this Web site and not in the Federal
Register.
Dated: February 4, 2004.
James R. Brown,
Acting Director, Water Quality Protection Division, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 04-3091 Filed 2-11-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P