U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

               CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM

   GRANT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT GUIDANCE
   \


^P*/
Chesapeake Bay Program


 A Watershed Partnership
                               *   l, J*
                               f     i

                               i    \
                                     t T
                           4"''---<...._
                                   * JI? *1Jto* *t-*H*ifc-fes*
                                                   October 2009


                               Updates to this Guidance are indicated in "bold"
                                *

-------
                       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                            Chesapeake Bay Program
                    Grant and Cooperative Agreement Guidance
      The attached guidance -- the Chesapeake Bay Program Grant and Cooperative
Agreement Guidance  dated October 2009 is hereby issued pursuant to EPA Delegation
No. 2-46 Chesapeake Bay Program, which delegates the Director of the Chesapeake Bay
Program the Authority to promulgate Agency Guidance for grants issued under Clean
Water Act Section 117.
                                              ape, Director
                                        apea'ke Bay Program Office

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FORWARD	1
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM: AN OVERVIEW	1
INTRODUCTION TO THE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT	.....4
COMPETITION PROCESS	6
ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT GUIDANCE	7
      A. AUTHORITY	.......7
      B. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS	8
      C. WORK PLAN	  10
         1. Work Plan Content	11
            a. 117(d) - Technical and General Assistance Grants, 117(e)(l)(B) - Monitoring
            Grants to  States/Signatory Jurisdictions, and 117(g)(2) Technical and General
            Assistance Grants under the Small Watershed Grants Program	11
            b. 117(e)(l)(A) - Signatory Jurisdiction Implementation and 117 (d) Headwater
            Grants	12
         2.  Progress Report Narrative and Work Plan and Progress Made Performance
            Results Under Assistance Agreements	12
    D.  ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS SPECIFICALLY FOR SIGNATORY
        JURISDICTION IMPLEMENTATION AND HEADWATER STATE GRANTS	13
         1. Data Submission Schedules	,	13
         2. Tributary Strategy Implementation Plan	14
         3. Geographic Targeting of Watersheds	  14
         4. Wetland Data	15
    E. QUALITY ASSURANCE	16
         1. Quality Management Plan	17
         2. Quality Assurance Project Plan	17
    F. OUTPUTS AND OUTCOMES	18
         1. Progress and Final Report Outputs	  17
         2. Data/Information and Document Outputs	18
         3. Program Management Outputs	19
FINANCIAL	19
    A.  COST SHARE REQUIREMENTS	19
    B.  EPA IN-KIND 	20
    C.  FEDE_RALFINANCIAL REPORT (FFR)	20
POST AWARD MONITORING	21
CONCLUSION	21

-------
                                                          UPDATED October 2009

Attachments

 1  Chesapeake 2000 Agreement

 2  Estuaries and Clean Water Act, Section 117

3 - Chesapeake 2000 Commitments and CAP Goals, CAP Topic Areas, CAP Activity
     Categories

4 Work Plan Content Template (Blank Form to be used for all Assistance Agreements)
     and Sample Work Plans for  1) Section 117 (e)(l)(A) - Chesapeake Bay
     Implementation Grants to States/Signatory Jurisdictions or Section 117 (d) -
     Headwater State Grants; 2)  Section 117(e)(l)(B) - Monitoring Grants to
     States/Signatory Jurisdiction Agreements, Section 117(d) - Technical and General
     Assistance Grants, and 117(g)(2) - Technical and General Assistance Grants under
     the Small Watershed Grants Program

5 Progress Report Narrative and Work Plan and Progress Made Performance Results
     under Assistance Agreements Templates (Blank Forms to be used for all Assistance
     Agreements) and Sample Work Plan and Progress Made Reports for 1) Section 117
     (e)(l)(A) - Chesapeake Bay Implementation Grants to States/Signatory Jurisdictions
     or Section 117(d) - Headwater State Grants; 2) Section 117(e)(l)(B) - Monitoring
     Grants to States/Signatory Jurisdiction Agreements. Section 117(d) - Technical and
     General Assistance Grants, and 117(g)(2) - Technical and General Assistance Grants
     under the Small Watershed Grants Program

6- CBP Wastewater Facility & Nonpoint Source Data Submission Specifications and
     Requirements

 7.__ CBP Quality Assurance  Guidelines and Requirements

 8  CBP Guidance and Policies for Data, Information and Document Outputs Submission

 9A- Toxics Data Acquisition Specifications

 9B - Data Submission Questionnaire

 10- U.S. EPA Region III CBP Administrative Cost Cap Worksheet

-------
FOREWORD

This guidance represents the way that the U.S. EPA, Region Ill's Chesapeake Bay Program
Office (CBPO) administers funds to focus on the restoration and protection of the Chesapeake
Bay Watershed. The purpose of this guidance is to present organizations with the best possible
information needed to apply for funding. It provides a sound framework to attain successful
assistance agreements that work toward achieving the goals set forth in the first Chesapeake Bay
Agreement of 1983 and subsequent agreements. This guidance will be revised and redistributed
periodically, as legislative, regulatory, or other changes need to be incorporated.

Some changes are being made to this guidance based on new Agency policies and Program
direction.  These changes are "bolded" for easier interpretation. If you should have any
questions regarding the new changes, please contact your Project Officer.

THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM: AN OVERVIEW

The Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) is a unique regional partnership that has been directing and
conducting the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay since the signing of the historic 1983
Chesapeake Bay Agreement. Considered a national and international model for estuarine
research and restoration programs, the Bay Program is led by the Chesapeake Executive Council
 the governors of Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania; the mayor of the District of Columbia;
the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the chair of the Chesapeake
Bay Commission, a tri-state legislative body. The Executive Council meets annually to establish
the policy direction for the Bay and its living resources in implementing the Chesapeake Bay
agreements.

As the largest estuary in the United States and one of the most productive in the world, the
Chesapeake was this nation's first estuary targeted for restoration and protection.  In the late
1970s, a congressionally funded $27 million five-year study was conducted when scientists
began to observe the loss of living resources, and the public became concerned about
environmental degradation in general. The study identified the main source of the Bay's
degradation as an oversupply of nutrients entering the Bay, and advocated programs that would
limit nutrient loadings from point sources such as wastewater treatment plants and non-point
sources such as fertilizers running off farmland. The study pinpointed three areas requiring
immediate attention: nutrient over-enrichment, dwindling underwater Bay grasses and toxic
pollution. Once the initial research was completed, the Bay Program evolved as the means to
restore this exceptionally valuable resource.

The term "Chesapeake Bay Agreement" means the formal, voluntary agreements executed to
achieve the goal of restoring and protecting the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem and its living
resources and signed by the  Chesapeake Executive Council.  The following is an overview of the
history of the Bay Program.

The original Chesapeake Bay Agreement, a simple,  one-page document pledging the partners to
work together to restore the  Chesapeake Bay, was signed in 1983 by the group that later became
known as the Chesapeake Executive Council.

-------
In the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, the Executive Council set a goal to reduce the nutrients
entering the Bay by 40% by the year 2000. Achieving this nutrient reduction goal would
ultimately improve the oxygen levels in Bay waters and encourage aquatic life to flourish. The
Chesapeake Bay Program Office, established by the EPA, was first authorized under the Clean
Water Act in 1987.

In 1992, the Chesapeake Executive Council agreed to maintain the 40% reduction goal beyond
the year 2000 and to attack nutrients at their source - upstream in the Bay's tributaries. As a
result, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia began developing
tributary strategies to achieve the nutrient reduction targets.

In 1994, the Bay Program completed its reevaluation of its Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy
in order to better understand the impact toxics have on the Bay's resources.  The Strategy was
further refined, rewritten and signed by the Executive Council in 2000 - the Toxics 2000
Strategy.

In July 1994, high-level federal officials from 25 agencies and departments signed the Agreement
of Federal Agencies on Ecosystem Management in the Chesapeake Bay. The historic agreement
outlined specific goals and commitments by federal agencies on federal lands throughout the
watershed, as well as new cooperative efforts by federal agencies elsewhere. The 1994 Federal
agreement was built and upon and expanded in 1998 with the signing of the Federal Agencies
Comprehensive Ecosystem Unified Plan (FACEUP), which had specific numerical goals for
Federal agencies and Federal lands.

After more than a year in the making, the Chesapeake Executive Council came together on June
28, 2000, to sign a historic  new agreement. The Chesapeake 2000 agreement lays the foundation
and sets the course for the Bay's restoration and protection for the next decade and beyond.  In
addition to the commitment to continue to meet goals set forth by previous agreements, this new
agreement lays out five goals: (1) Living Resource Protection and Restoration; (2) Vital Habitat
Protection and Restoration; (3) Water Quality Protection and Restoration; (4) Sound Land Use,
and (5) Stewardship and Community Engagement. Each goal provides specific target dates and
measurable objectives to achieve better results for a cleaner, more productive Bay (see
Attachment 3)..

The governors of New York and Delaware committed to the water quality goals of the
Chesapeake 2000 agreement by signing a multi-jurisdictional Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with the EPA, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia in 2000.
West Virginia signed on to the MOU in 2002.

In addition to these agreements, each year the Chesapeake Executive Council meets to reaffirm
its commitment to the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay, sometimes signing, new Directives
and/or Adoption Statements (they can be found at www.chjesa2eake^aj[.net). The Executive
Council most recently met on May 12, 2009, and announced the release of a Presidential
Executive Order (EO 13508) that mandates increased federal leadership following
extensive coordination with the jurisdictions.  EO 13508 also mandates development of a
coordinated implementation strategy and an annual action plan.
                                          -2-

-------
In 2008, the Chesapeake Bay Program developed the Chesapeake Action Plan (CAP). The CAP
is outlined in a report that the Bay Program submitted to Congress titled Strengthening the
Management, Coordination and Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Program.
(htt|Dl//caj).chj;^                                                 The CAP was developed
to strengthen and expand partnerships in the watershed, enhance coordination of restoration
activities, and increase the collective accountability for protecting the Chesapeake Bay. The
CAP includes four primary components:  1) a strategic framework that outlines how partners will
pursue the restoration and protection goals of the Bay and its Watershed; 2) the Chesapeake
Registry (formerly known as the Activity Integration Plan) that catalogues partners resources
and activities being undertaken and planned; 3) dashboards containing annual targets toward the
Chesapeake 2000 goals, strategic analysis of challenges and future emphasis, and summaries of
actions and funding; 4) an adaptive management process  that begins to identify how the
information will provide input to partner actions and priorities.  The resources and activities
contained in the Chesapeake Registry include grant information. Through improved
management systems, integrated strategy, and a better ability to link priorities, activities, and
resources across the partnership, these tools will help partners achieve a more effective Bay-
program and partnership.

As a means to achieve these goals and commitments, the U.S. EPA awards assistance
agreements (grants/cooperative agreements) to state water pollution control agencies, interstate
agencies, other public or nonprofit agencies, institutions,  organizations and individuals. For
more complete information on eligibility, see the Assistance Agreement Guidance, A. Authority
section, pp 6-7. The type of projects awarded range from the monitoring of bay grasses to
environmental education. These projects have helped support the commitments set forth since
the historic Chesapeake Bay Agreement of 1983 to the current Chesapeake 2000 and will
continue for the next decade and beyond.

The Chesapeake Bay Program link to EPA's Strategic Plan is Goal 4: Healthy Communities and
Ecosystems, Objective 4.3: Ecosystems, Sub-objective 4.3.4: Improve Aquatic Health of the
Chesapeake Bay.  To better implement the water quality goal of the Chesapeake 2000 agreement
by 2011, EPA established strategic targets to prevent pollution and protect aquatic systems so
that the overall health of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem is improved.  The strategic targets are as
follows:

*  SP-33: By 2011, achieve 45 percent (83,250 acres) of the 185,000 acres of submerged
   aquatic vegetation necessary to achieve Chesapeake Bay water quality standards.
  SP-34: By 2011, achieve 40 percent (29.92 km3) of the long-term restoration goal of 100
   percent attainment of the dissolved oxygen water quality standards in  all tidal waters of the
   Bay.
  SP-35:By 2011, achieve 59 percent (95.88 million pounds) of the implementation goal for
   nitrogen reduction practices necessary to achieve Chesapeake Bay water quality standards,
   expressed as nitrogen reduction in relation to achieving a 162.5 million pound reduction from
    1985 levels (based on long-term average hydrology simulations).
  SP 36: By 2011, achieve 74 percent (10.63 million pounds) of the implementation goal for
   phosphorus reduction practices necessary to achieve Chesapeake Bay  water quality
                                          - 3 -

-------
   standards, expressed as phosphorus reduction in relation to achieving a 14.36 million pound
   reduction from 1985 levels (based on long-term average hydrology simulations)
  SP 37: By 2011, achieve 74 percent (1.25 million tons) of the implementation goal for
   sediment reduction practices necessary to achieve Chesapeake Bay water quality standards,
   expressed as sediment reduction in relation to achieving a 1.69 million ton reduction from
   1985 levels (based on long-term average hydrology simulations).

INTRODUCTION TO THE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT

This guidance document has been developed to assist applicants for assistance agreements
(grants and cooperative agreements) to support the Chesapeake Bay Program goals. Please note,
throughout 2008 the Chesapeake Bay and Watershed Monitoring Networks are undergoing an
external review process through the Chesapeake Bay Program's Scientific and Technical
Advisory Committee. The U.S. EPA CBPO will take into account recommendations from that
review which could affect the structure of work plans and applications for the upcoming grant
cycle. However, the  review and recommendations will not be completed  in time for the
publication of this grant guidance document. Upon completion of the Chesapeake Bay and
Watershed Monitoring Networks review and consideration of subsequent  recommendations
provided by the external review in January 2009, any recommendations from the review will be
negotiated between the recipient and the Agency's Project Officer.

This guidance has been revised to incorporate requirements and explanations of new and existing
EPA Orders and Directives. Excerpts from new and recently revised EPA Orders and  Directives
that require this guidance to be updated are as follows:

"Effective October 1, 2009, EPA grantees should begin using the new SF-425, Federal
Financial Report (FFR), to report on the financial status of their grants.  The FFR replaces
the SF-269 and SF-269a, Financial Status Report (FSR), and the SF-272 and SF272a,
Federal Cash Transactions Report. A blank, fillable FFR is available at the Las Vegas
Finance Center's (LVFC) website: httJii/M23^


 "EPA's Final Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Rule, effective  May 25, 2008". "The
DBE Rule renames EPA's Minority Business  Enterprise/Women's Business Enterprise
(MBE/WBE) Program as the "Disadvantaged  Business Enterprise (DBE)  Program". The DBE
Rule imposes stricter requirements (and more  flexibility in some cases) for EPA's grant
recipients, sub-recipients, and loan recipients (and the prime contractors of these three  entities)
when they procure sendees, supplies, equipment, and construction under assistance agreements
with EPA. The DBE Program requirements will apply  to EPA financial assistance
agreements/grants awarded on or after May 25, 2008. (Note:  Individual grants awarded before
May 27, 2008 will remain subject to EPA's MBE/WBE  Program requirements as specified in the
MBE/WBE Terms &  Conditions.)  EPA's Office of Small Business Programs notified all grant
recipients about the publication of the Agency's Final DBE Rule in the Federal Register as well
as the rule's effective date.  This regulation has since been posted on EPA's website
                   and DBE Program Fact Sheets will soon be accessible by the  public at that
                                         .4.

-------
same website location." Region III assistance awards approved on or after May 25, 2008 will
include the new DBE Terms & Conditions.

EPA Order 5700.2. Implementation Order to Streamline Small Grants expired on February 15,
2008. The Order is otherwise known as the Small Grants Policy (agreements of $100.000 or
less) and was rescinded because the Agency has been unable to fully implement the provisions
for streamline application review due to the changed oversight concerns of the OIG, Congress,
and GAO."

"EPA Order 5700.8, Policy on Assessing Capabilities of Non-Profit Applicants  for Managing
Assistance Awards, effective March 24, 2005". A non-profit organization's administrative
capability is  reviewed after the Request for Proposal evaluation process is complete, and after the
selection recommendation has been made. Non-profit applicants that are recommended for
funding will be subject to pre-award administrative capability reviews consistent with Sections
8b, 8c and 9d of EPA Order 5700.8. A link to this Order is located at:
http://www.epa. go v/o gd/grants/a ward/5 70Q_8. pdf.

The Order, in Section 7(c), defines non-profit organizations as any corporation,  trust, association.
cooperative, or other organization which: (1) is operated primarily for scientific, educational,
service, charitable or similar purposes in the public interest; (2) is not organized primarily for
profit; (3) uses its net proceeds to maintain, improve, and/or expand its operations; and (4) is
subject to 40 CFR Part 30. The term does not include: colleges and universities as defined
under Office of Management Budget (OMB) Circular A-21; State, local and federally-recognized
Indian Tribal governments; hospitals; and organizations considered as similar to concerns under
Attachment C to OMB Circular A-122. Applicable staff in the EPA Grants and Chesapeake Bay
Program offices and the non-profit applicant will coordinate their efforts to assure that the
requirements of EPA Order 5700.8 are met.

"EPA Order 5700.7, Environmental Results under EPA Assistance Agreements, effective
January 1, 2005 established new Agency policy/procedures for awarding assistance agreements.
This policy was established for making assistance agreements  1) more results-oriented and
aligned with EPA's Strategic Plan; 2) ensure that outputs and outcomes are appropriately
addressed in assistance  agreement competitive funding announcements, work plans and
performance reports (quarterly; semi-annual; draft; and final); and 3)  consider how the results
from completed assistance agreement projects contribute to the Agency's programmatic goals
and objectives." The recipient and the Project Officer will coordinate their efforts to assure  the
programmatic work plans and performance reports meet the requirements of EPA Order 5700.7.

"EPA Order 5700.5A1, Policy for Competition of Assistance Agreements, effective January 15,
2005 establishes the EPA policy and requirements for the competition of assistance agreements."
This EPA policy promotes competition to the maximum extent practicable in the award of
assistance agreements.  Applicable EPA staff involved in the preparation of the  Requests for
Proposals (RFP) and selection process must adhere to the requirements of this Order.

"EPA Order 5700.6A2 CHG 2, Policy on Compliance, Review, and Monitoring, effective
January 1, 2008" restates and establishes EPA standards for the oversight, monitoring, and
                                          -5-

-------
closeout of EPA assistance agreements (grants and cooperative agreements)". The purpose of
monitoring is to provide for the effective oversight of recipient performance and management. It
is the Project Officer's responsibility with recipient participation to conduct monitoring reviews
and to review interim (quarterly; semi-annual; final) performance reports during and at closeout
of the assistance award. This Order replaces, rescinds, and supersedes EPA Order 5700. 6A1,
"Policy on Compliance, Review and Monitoring," and GPI-92-04, "EPA Closeouts Policy for
Grants and Cooperative Agreements".

"Subaward Policy, effective May 15, 2007, requires all new awards and supplemental
amendments awarded on or after May 15 must meet the requirements of the Directive. The
purpose of this Directive is to strengthen the management of subawards made by recipients under
EPA assistance agreements (grants and cooperative agreements). Areas addressed include the
establishment of an administrative national term and condition, eligibility, special considerations
for specific types of subawards, subaward competition, and distinctions between procurement
contracts and subawards.  The EPA Project Officer is responsible for reviewing proposed
subaward work specified in an assistance agreement application work plan, or work plan changes
requiring prior approval, in order to ensure compliance with the Subaward Directive and in
accordance with cost review guidance provided/approved by EPA Headquarters Office; ensuring
that proposed subaward work is for an authorized assistance purpose and not to acquire goods
and services for use by the recipient;  obtaining necessary Headquarters consent for work to be
performed in a foreign country or any work by a foreign recipient or international organization;
and informing the recipient of any program-specific restrictions or statutory restrictions on
subawards."

In the past, this Guidance document has been provided to potential applicants on an annual basis.
To reduce paperwork and the need for an annual review, starting in Fiscal  Year 2005, this
guidance is being revised and redistributed periodically as legislative, regulatory, or other
changes need to be incorporated. The EPA Chesapeake Program Office hopes that this will
make this process easier for all applicants. This Guidance is posted on the following website:
             )ajJv/jgi^^
COMPETITION PROCESS

Effective January 15. 2005, EPA Order 5700. 5A1, Policy for Competition of Assistance
Agreements, establishes EPA policy and requirements for the competition of assistance
agreements. The authority for this Order is the Federal Grant and Cooperative Act of 1977, as
amended, 31 U.S.C. 6301(3).

Effective October 1 , 2006, grants.gov is available for electronic submission of
proposal/applications under competitive announcements issued by the Chesapeake Bay Program
Office (CBPO). CBPO's competitive grant announcements (RFPs) will include appropriate
instructions on how to submit proposal(s). Hard copy and email submission directly to CBPO
are still allowed. Please follow the instructions in the RFPs for specific submission
guidance.
                                          -6-

-------
The EPA employs several mechanisms to promote an open and competitive process in support of
the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement of 1977, which "encourages" Agency managers to
seek out competition in the selection of recipients of Assistance Agreements. The EPA CBPO
competes funds through Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for (1) single year activities to support
priorities or (2) multi-year activities to support CBP functions or priorities. Due to budget
limitations, EPA CBPO is not issuing RFPs on a regular basis.

Single-Year Activities

Each Spring, EPA CBPO may announce the RFP for single- year activities through e-mails,
mailings, and website postings.  These requested .proposals are in support of the Chesapeake
2000 Agreement, prior Chesapeake Bay Agreements and all Executive Council Directives and
Adoption Statements. The goal is to solicit proposals that further the protection and restoration
of living resources, vital habitat and water quality, the promotion of sound land use practices and
the engagement of individuals and communities throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

Multi-Year Activities

The intent of the EPA CBPO is to provide grants/cooperative agreements for related activities
that have been grouped together for effective delivery through a multi-year grant competition
process. The multi-year RFPs that may be issued will be competed and awarded for a period of
up to five years. EPA intends to continue this approach since it balances the need for
competition with the benefit of continuity.

If you are interested in receiving any of the above RFPs, please contact EPA CBPO at 1-800-
YOUR-BAY (968-7229) and request to be added to the RFP database.  Your Project Officer can
answer any questions you have regarding this competitive process. All of CBPO's RFPs are
posted on the following website: Mlpj//www.e^^
ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT GUIDANCE

Applying for assistance agreements involves the development of a work plan, filling out a
federal application and certifications and providing budget information. This guidance contains
the following sections:

     A. AUTHORITY

This section describes the legal authorization that allows EPA to provide these funds to
organizations.

On November 7, 2000, the President signed the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000, which
includes Title II-Chesapeake Bay Restoration (see Attachment 2). This Act amends Section 1 17
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) and establishes new authorities for
the Chesapeake Bay Prqgram. These new legal authorities specify the type of work that can be
performed with the funds appropriated for the Chesapeake Bay Program, the type of funding
vehicles (e.g., assistance agreement) that can be used, and the type of organization eligible to
                                          - 7 -

-------
receive funding. The purposes of these amended authorities are: (1) to expand and strengthen
cooperative efforts to restore and protect the Chesapeake Bay; and (2) to achieve the goals
established in the Chesapeake Bay Agreement. The term "Chesapeake Bay Agreement" means
the formal, voluntary agreements signed by the Chesapeake Executive Council and executed to
achieve the goal of restoring and protecting the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem (e.g., the 1987
Chesapeake Bay Agreement, Chesapeake 2000 agreement, various Executive Council directives.
etc.).

Section 117(g)(2) authorizes the Small Watershed Grants Program which provides grants to local
governments, nonprofit organizations and individuals in the Chesapeake Bay region working on
a local level to protect and improve watersheds, .while building citizen-based resource
stewardship. The purpose of the grants program is to demonstrate effective techniques and
partnership-building to achieve Chesapeake Bay Program objectives at the small watershed
scale. The Small Watershed Grants Program has been designed to encourage the sharing of
innovative ideas among the many organizations wishing to be involved in watershed protection
activities.

Section 117(e)(l)(A) authorizes EPA to award Chesapeake Bay Implementation Grants to
State/Signatory Jurisdictions and Section 117(e)(l)(B) authorizes EPA to award Monitoring
Grants for State/Signatory Jurisdictions.  The Implementation Grants are for the purpose of
implementing the management mechanisms established under the Chesapeake Bay
Agreement, with particular emphasis on state programs for control and abatement of non-
point source nutrient and sediment pollution (including atmospheric deposition as a non-
point source).  In May 2009, jurisdictions adopted 2-year milestones to accelerate
reductions of nutrient pollution.  Grants should support implementation of milestones
commitments and comparable actions that support nutrient reduction goals. If
jurisdictions do not use 117(e)(l)(A) grants for projects consistent with Chesapeake 2000
Agreement goals, EPA may reallocate, condition or withhold funds. These grants can be
awarded non-competitively to any signatory jurisdiction that has or will have signed the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement.

All other Technical Assistance and General Assistance Grants under Section 117(d) will be
awarded competitively to nonprofit organizations, State and local governments, colleges,
universities, and interstate agencies to implement the goals of the Chesapeake Bay Agreements;
such as activities to support living resource protection and restoration; vital habitat protection
and restoration;  water quality protection and restoration; sound land use; and stewardship and
community engagement.

     B-  APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS

This section lists all the required documentation and information needed to provide EPA with a
complete application. It  includes time frames, contacts and address information.

All grantees, applying under Section 117(d )&(g)(2) grants, must submit a completed
original assistance agreement application with signatures to the Grants and Audit Management
Branch (3PM70), U.S. EPA Region III, 1650  Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA  19103-2029. A
                                         -8-

-------
hard or email copy should also be submitted to the EPA Project Officer, Chesapeake Bay
Program Office, 410 Severn Avenue, Suite 109, Annapolis, MD 21403.

As of June 10, 2009, for those applying for Section 117(e) grants only, non-competitive
grant applications are being accepted by the Region III Grants and Audit Management
Branch (GAMB) via scanned pdfs through a designated electronic mail box (EMB). The
address is: E^SlKiSLAESMsMMMMfS^^I.' Applicants can use this EMB in lieu of hard
copy submissions.  The EPA Project Officer should be courtesy copied on any submissions
through EMB.

       Note: We understand grants.gov may be back up and running sometime in 2010.  We
       will notify you once grants.gov is made available for use.  In the interim, please
       continue preparing solicitations with the hard copy and email submission.

For new awards, the application must be submitted for review at least 90 'days before the
proposed start date and 60 days before the proposed start date for continuation awards or
amendments. State and Local Governments receiving assistance under any of the provisions of
Section 117 must comply with 40 CFR Part 31 and all other applicants must comply with 40
CFR Part 30. An electronic version of the application, application forms and checklists can be
found on the Internet at: \M^:/lwv:fv^.ega.^!doS^L-  Office of Office of Management & Budget
Circulars may be found at: tUjx//www^

A complete application must include the following components to be considered for review:

     1.   Transmittal letter signed by the applicant
     2.   Standard Form (SF) 424 - with Intergovernmental Review (Executive Order 12372
          Process) documented by date and original signature of authorized representative
     3.   SF 424-A
     4.   Budget detail
     5.   SF424-B
     6.   A fully descriptive work plan, which includes:
          A) Work Plan Content Narrative (see Attachment 4 for Sample Work Plan Content
             Template (to be used for all assistance agreement work plans) and two Samples of
             Completed Work Plan Templates: 1) for Section 117(e)(l )(A) - Chesapeake Bay
             Implementation Grants to States/Signatory Jurisdictions or Section 117(d) -
             Headwater State Grants; 2) for 117(d) - Technical and General Assistance Grants,
              117 (e)(l)(B) -Monitoring Grants to State/Signatory Jurisdiction Agreements, and
             117(g)(2) - Technical and General Assistance Grants under the Small
             Watershed Grants Program .
          B) Progress Report Narrative and Work Plan and Progress Made Performance
             Results Under Assistance Agreements Templates to be used for all assistance
             agreement work plans. (See Attachment 5 for 1) Blank Templates and 2) two
             Samples of Completed Work Plan and Progress Made Results Under Assistance
             Agreements templates for:  1) Section 117 (e)(l)(A) - Chesapeake Bay
             Implementation Grants to States/Signatory Jurisdictions or Section 117(d) -
             Headwater State Grants; 2) Section 117(e)(l)(B) - Monitoring Grants to

-------
             States/Signatory Jurisdiction Agreements, Section 117(d) - Technical and
             General Assistance Grants, and 117(g)(2) - Technical and General Assistance
             Grants under the Small Watershed Grants Program.)
     7.    Quality Management and Quality Assurance Project Plans - required if proposal
          accepted. (See Attachment 7)
     8.    Current indirect cost agreement - must use lower indirect cost rate if staff are on-site
          at the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office in Annapolis, MD.
     9.    Certification Regarding Lobbying
     10.   SF LLL (Disclosure of Lobbying Activities)
     11.   EPA Form 5700-49 Debarment/Suspension Certification
     12.   EPA Form 4700-4 Pre-award Compliance Review Report
     13.   Administrative Cap Worksheet (see Attachment 10) - In accordance with the Paper
          Reduction Act, a revised worksheet is provided and will no longer be required to
          submit as an attachment to the Application for Federal Assistance (SF424).  The
          worksheet is to assist you in calculating allowable administrative costs. The
          Budget Detail of your Application for Federal Assistance (SF-424) should reflect
          how your administrative costs will comply with the cap.  In addition, this sample
          worksheet does not apply to Small Watershed Grants awarded under the
          authority. ofCWA 117f g)(2)(A).

Any incomplete application may delay processing.  In addition, the recipient can expect an award
after all administrative and programmatic issues are resolved and the State Intergovernmental
Review comment period has been met.  Grant awards or amendments for additional funding will
not be approved by EPA until all deliverables from previous or current grants are completed,
unless a specific written agreement to complete all previous overdue deliverables has been
approved by the Project Officer prior to the proposed award date.

     C. WORK PLAN

This section describes what is expected in the work plan of an application.

On January 1, 2005, EPA issued a new Order 5700.7. The Order states that an Assistance
Agreement work plan must be negotiated to ensure that the Work Plan contains well-defined
outputs and, to the maximum extent practicable, well-defined outcomes.  Definitions of output
and outcome are as follows:

       a. "Output" means an environmental activity, effort, and/or associated work products
       related to an environmental goal or objective that will be produced or provided over a
       period of time or by a specific date. Outputs may be quantitative but must be measurable
       during an assistance agreement-funding period.

       b. "Outcome" means the result, effect or consequence that will occur from carrying out an
       environmental program or activity that is related to an environmental programmatic goal
       or objective. Outcomes may be environmental, behavioral, health-related or
       programmatic  in nature, must be quantitative, and may not necessarily be achievable
       within an assistance agreement-funding period.
                                         - 10-

-------
For all proposals competed through the Chesapeake Bay Program, the Work Plan should include
original proposal language and format (unless there are changes to the scope agreed to by the
Project Officer and the grantee, in writing).  If an assistance agreement application contains more
than one competed proposal, an introductory paragraph should describe the overall strategy your
organization has developed for completing all of the tasks. Additionally, for any proposals
associated with the multi-year grants (e.g., local government, small watershed, communications,
etc.) the Work Plan should provide information on the connection between each proposed project
and the Chesapeake Bay Program goals and objectives set forth in the Chesapeake Bay
Agreement.  Prior to approving an assistance agreement work plan, the Agency's Project Officer
must ensure that they can  link the work plan to EPA's Strategic Plan. Currently the Chesapeake
Bay Program has one link to EPA's  Strategic Plan, which is Goal 4:  Healthy Communities and
Ecosystems; Objective 4.3: Ecosystems; and Sub-objective 4.3.4: Improved Aquatic Health of
the Chesapeake Bay.  This link information  must be used wherever it is needed when completing
your application and performance reports (quarterly, semi-annual, final).

The Work Plan consists of two parts: 1) Work Plan Content; and 2) Work Plan and Progress
Made Performance Results Under Assistance Agreements Templates. Explanation of each part
is as follows:

1.  Work Plan Content
Grant recipients should align Work Plans, to the extent possible, with the CBP goal, topic area,
and activity category as they appear in "Strengthening the Management, Coordination and
Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Program." These goals, topic areas and activity
categories should be referred to when  completing the Work Plan. Refer to Attachment 3, page 8
to determine the appropriate goal, topic area and activity category from "Strengthening the
Management, Coordination and Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Program."

Additionally, recipients are required to identify the appropriate Chesapeake 2000 commitment.
Refer to Attachment 3, pages 1-7 to determine the appropriate Chesapeake 2000 commitment.

          a. 117(d)- Technical and General Assistance  Grants,  117(e)(l)(B) Monitoring
          Grants to States/Signatory Jurisdictions, and 117(g)(2) Technical and General
          Assistance Grants under the Small Watershed Grants Program (Attachment 4)

Grant recipients submitting Work Plans under Section 117(d) - Technical and General
Assistance. 117(e)(l)(B) - Monitoring Grants to States/Signatory Jurisdictions, and 117(g)(2) -
Technical and General Assistance Grants under the Small Watershed Grants Program
should follow this sample (see Attachment 4). Work Plan Content includes; a) an Introduction
(background of your Organization and historical perspective, if any,  of work contributing to the
restoration of the Chesapeake Bay); b) For each Objective, Work Plan information pertaining to
objective goal, supported  Chesapeake 2000 commitment and CBP goals, topics, and activity
categories, description of project, specific activities and/or outcomes, projected timeline for
completion of activities (including a schedule for completion of activities), outputs under
                                         -11-

-------
objective, anticipated outcomes, evaluation criteria, link to EPA's Strategic Plan, Budget Detail,
and Summary of Staff Funded.

          b. 117(e)(l)(A) - Chesapeake Bay Implementation Grants to Slates/Signatory
          Jurisdictions or 117(d) Head-water State Grants (Attachment 4)

Grant Recipients submitting Work Plans for Chesapeake Bay Implementation Grants to
States/Signatory Jurisdictions for Section 117(e)(l)(A) and Section 117(d) Headwater State
Grants should follow this sample (see Attachment 4). Work Plan Content includes: a) an
Introduction; b) General Information; c) Objectives/Projects [title, budget amount, supported
Chesapeake 2000 commitment(s), and CBP goals, topics, and activity categories, objective goal
statement, description, history, tasks, outputs, outcomes (linked to Chesapeake 2000 and the
jurisdiction's tributary strategy goals) and  link to EPA's strategic plan]; d) Budget Detail; and e)
Summary of Staff Funded.

The Work Plan must include in the Introduction, Attachment 4, a narrative identifying all state
and federal funding programs used to address nutrient related activities within the Chesapeake
Bay watershed, and the linkages between these funding sources and the objectives/projects
funded through the Implementation and Headwater State Grants. This narrative must identify the
state and federal point and non-point source programs that are available to fund the jurisdiction's
nutrient and sediment reduction efforts and explain how each program is used to address
tributary strategy  activities.  Examples of state and federal programs include, but are not limited
to: (1) Clean Water Act, Section 319, Section 104(b)(3) or 106; (2) State Revolving Funds, (3)
USDA EQIP and  Conservation Reserve (CRP) Programs, (4) State Conservation Reserve
Enhancement Program (CREP), and (5) Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments, Section
6217.

The Work Plan should focus on those objectives/projects that achieve the goals and milestones
contained in both the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement and the jurisdiction's tributary strategies.  For
outcomes related to the jurisdiction's tributary strategies, please include estimates of reductions
in nutrient loads resulting from their implementation, where appropriate.  Additionally, each
objective/project outcome must link to the specific Chesapeake 2000 commitment(s) being
achieved and the amount of funds being allocated to them. If the Work Plan contains long term
objectives/projects that exceed one grant cycle, additional information is required. The applicant
must provide information on what will be accomplished during the current grant cycle, if the
objective/project is on track, the ultimate goal of the objective/project and what has been
completed in previous years.  It is encouraged that progress on previous objectives/projects be
provided in  table form, if applicable.

2. Progress Report Narrative and Work Plan and Progress Made Performance Results under
Assistance Agreements (Attachment 5)

The Progress Report Narrative and Work Plan and Progress Made Performance Results under
Assistance Agreements Templates (see Attachment 5) must be completed and be part of the
application package.  Attachment 5 provides one template and two samples for your use. Please
choose the appropriate template to  complete for your grant. For the application submittal,
                                          -12-

-------
complete only the recipient name, assistance number (if known), and project description. Attach
the completed Work Plan and Progress Made Performance Results under Assistance Agreements
template to the Progress Report Narrative.

After the assistance agreement has been awarded, the recipient will need to complete the entire
Progress Report Narrative Template and attach the completed Work Plan and Progress Made
Performance Results Under Assistance Agreements Template using the most updated and
approved work plan information. Submit to the Project Officer when your progress report is
due (i.e., quarterly,  semi-annually, and final). There will be a programmatic grant condition in
your Assistance Agreement award document that specifies the reporting period.

The Work Plan and Progress Made Performance Results under Assistance Agreements Template
will enable the recipient to document the outputs and outcomes that are included in the
application Work Plan.  Also, this template will be instrumental in 1) linking work plans to
EPA's Strategic Plan, Chesapeake 2000 Commitments and CBP goals, topics and activity
categories; 2) providing progress made after the assistance award is approved.  The electronic
copy of this completed template sent with your application will be used during the project to
make any revisions to the Work Plan, if necessary, with the approval of the Agency's Project
Officer and to report on progress of outputs and performance.  Using these templates will
hopefully eliminate the need to repeatedly type the same information each time an interim
(quarterly or serni-annually) performance report is due. These templates must be completed and
submitted with all Work Plans.

     D.  ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS SPECIFICALLY FOR SIGNATORY
         JURISDICTION IMPLEMENTATION AND HEADWATER STATE GRANTS

It is assumed that the results achieved by coordinating Chesapeake Bay Program Implementation
and Headwater State Grant activities with other available state and federal programs produces
cost effective solutions that meet the current nutrient and sediment reduction cap load allocations
and Chesapeake 2000 commitments.  The expenditure of public funds requires the ability to
justify continuation of the program through a periodic cost effectiveness evaluation. Currently,
the accepted accounting measure for justifying fund expenditures uses  non-point source BMP
implementation, point source and other nutrient and sediment reduction activity information as
input data for the CBP Watershed Model (WSM) annual progress runs.

1.      Data Submission Schedules

Annual progress reporting is an output of this grant. Grant recipients are expected to provide
point source and non-point source nutrient and sediment load reduction implementation progress
data on the following schedule:

       December 31, 2010:   Data from July 1, 2009 - June 30,2010

This schedule may  not apply to the Commonwealth of Virginia which may submit its data in
accordance with the Nutrient Allocation Compliance and Reporting requirements under Section
62.1-44.19:18 of the Virginia Code. Those data that are submitted to the CBPO are expected to
                                         -13-

-------
be complete, quality assured, and in proper format for immediate processing in a CBP WSM
annual progress scenario. See Attachment 6 for data specifications and requirements.
2.      Tributary Strategy Implementation Plan

       A joint EPA-USDA Office of Inspector General Evaluation Report (Saving the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Requires Better Coordination of Environmental and Agriculture
Resources, EPA OIG Report No. 2007-P-00004; USDA OIG Report No. 50601-10-Hq) issued
on November 20, 2006, recommended that EPA/CBPO "Include development of [tributary
strategy] implementation plans as a special condition in Chesapeake Bay Program grant
agreements for States that have not submitted an implementation plan" (p.44). This Report can
be found at wwv^rja^^^                                       EPA management
agreed with this recommendation.  Therefore, any signatory jurisdiction implementation or
headwater state grant that does not have a tributary strategy implementation plan is directed to
work directly with its Project Officer to assure that the tributary strategy implementation and
headwater state plans are incorporated into its Work Plan.  Detailed information on developing
tributary strategies will be negotiated with the Project Officer.

AH grantees, applying under Section 117(d )&(g)(2) grants, must submit a completed
original assistance agreement application with signatures to the Grants and Audit
Management Branch (3PM70), U.S. EPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA
19103-2029.  A hard or email copy should  also be submitted to the EPA Project Officer,
Chesapeake Bay Program Office, 410 Severn Avenue, Suite 109, Annapolis, MB 21403,

As of June 10, 2009, for those applying for Section 117(e) grants only, non-competitive
grant applications are being accepted by the Region III Grants and Audit Management
Branch (GAMB) via scanned pdfs through a designated electronic mail box (EMB). The
address is: R3  Grant ApplicationsfSjepa.gov. Applicants can use this EMB in lieu of hard
copy submissions. The EPA Project Officer should be courtesy copied on any submissions
through EMB.

For Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania, if the application is received by April 11, the applicant
can expect an award by July 1 of that calendar year, assuming that all administrative and
programmatic issues have been resolved. For the District of Columbia only: In order for the
grant to be awarded by October 1. a complete application should be received by July  1 following
the same procedure outlined above.  Other State recipients should submit their assistance
agreement 60 days prior to the end of their current grant's Budget Period.
3.     Geographic Targeting of Watersheds

Grant recipients must give preference to priority watersheds and priority practices that
will result in the greatest benefits to water quality in the Bay, consistent with the
Chesapeake Bay Program's on-going efforts to use the latest science to identify priority
watersheds and practices.
                                         - 14-

-------
Priority practices are those practices that reduce or prevent the greatest nutrient and
sediment loads to the Chesapeake Bay. Priority watersheds are those watersheds that have
the greatest influence on Bay water quality. Priority watersheds can include watersheds in
greatest need of restoration (where nutrient/sediment loads to the Bay are greatest and the
watershed is having a negative impact on water quality) or protection (where
nutrient/sediment loads are the lowest and  the watershed is having a positive impact on
Bay water quality).

For example, in agricultural watersheds, grant recipients can give preference to the
Chesapeake On-line Adaptive Support Toolkit (COAST) priority agricultural watersheds
that have the highest nutrient loadings to the tidal Bay and local nutrient-related
impairments and to those practices that have the greatest pollution reduction effectiveness
based on the most recent analyses conducted by the Chesapeake Bay Program.
4.     Wetland Data

Wetland restoration and creation are credited as BMPs in the CBP watershed model, and wetland
restoration is both a reporting level indicator for the annual Chesapeake Bay Health and
Restoration Assessment, as well as a current program performance dashboard. The CBP
needs annual wetland accomplishment data from the State partners in order to update both the
model and the communication tools. Accordingly, signatory and headwater states and the District
of Columbia will submit wetland information as a deliverable of this grant according to the Data
Submission Schedule identified in this guidance. Each State should be submitting only one set
of wetland data.

States will submit voluntary wetland restoration and regulatory wetland mitigation data via the
CBP Wetland Reporting Excel spread sheet which is included in the e-mail notification to data
partners at the onset of the data call, October 1s; of each year. Wetland data is to be quality
assured by the state wetland data contacts listed below and submitted by December 31 of each
year to Jennifer Greiner, greiner.jeimifer@epa.gov,  Due to peak wetland field season occurring
in the summer months, the reporting period for wetland data will be the annual Water Year,
October 1st through September 30th. Information that is sent to Jennifer will be used for the
purpose of tracking yearly implementation progress.
                                         -15-

-------
The following are the responsible wetland data contacts for each state:
Mark Biddle (Delaware)
DE Dept. of Nat. Resources & Env. Control
M^-Mddlei@st
(302) 739-9939
Robin Pellicano (Maryland)
Maryland Department of the Environment
(410)537-4215
In Consultation with

Denise Clearwater (Maryland)
Maryland Department of the Environment
(410)537-3781
Steve Saari (District of Columbia)
Watershed Protection Specialist
B.C. Department of Environment
stevc. saari(g)dc. go v
(202)535-2961
Alana Hartman (West Virginia)
Potomac Basin Coordinator
West Virginia Dept. of Environmental Protection
Almia.CJiartmani^wv.gov
(304) 822-7266
Melissa Yearick (New York)
Upper Susquehanna Coalition
Brenda Winn (Virginia)
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
(607)734-1915

Dave Goerman (Pennsylvania)
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection djsenrian@ilJBSiMS
(717)772-5971

In Consultation with

Kenn Pattison (Pennsylvania)
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection
(804)698-4516
(717) 772-5652
        E. QUALITY ASSURANCE

This section describes specific technical documentation and reporting requirements for assistance
agreements that involve the collection or use of environmental data.  This includes a description
of Quality Management Plans and Quality Assurance Project Plans.
                                        - 16-

-------
All grants and cooperative agreements that involve the collection and/or use of environmental
data must provide documentation of the recipient's quality assurance policies and practices
(Quality Management Plan) as well as the detailed quality assurance and quality control
procedures and specifications (Quality Assurance Project Plan).  Environmental  data are defined
as direct measurements of environmental conditions or releases,  such as sample collection and
analysis.  Environmental data also include data collected from secondary sources of information,
such as computer databases, computer models, literature files and historical databases.  Within
the Chesapeake Bay Program, direct measurements are collected for surface water, sediment,
atmospheric, living resource, and remotely-sensed data. Pre-existing data used to assess the
efficiency of implemented management practices (BMPs) and for environmental model
development, calibration, verification, and application are also subject to quality assurance
requirements.

Not all assistance agreements have Quality Assurance requirements. The recipient must work
with the Project Officer in advance of submission of an application to determine the need for
development and schedule for submission of a Quality Management Plan and Quality Assurance
Project Plans. Quality assurance documents must be approved by EPA prior to the initiation of
data collection activities.

1. Quality Management Plan

In accordance with federal requirements (40 CFR 30.54 and 31.45), the recipient must  develop
and implement management policies and practices that result in  data of adequate quality to meet
program  objectives. These policies and practices must be documented in a Quality Management
Plan.  The Quality Management Plan should be prepared in accordance with the EPA
requirements. Responsibilities for development of Quality Management Plans, specific guidance
and requirements for their development, and schedules for their  submission, review and approval
are described in more detail in Attachment 7.

2. Quality Assurance Project Plan

When the recipient is performing the environmental data collection  activity, such as direct
measurements, data collection from other sources, or data compilation from computerized data
bases and information systems, a Quality Assurance Project Plan must be submitted to the
Project Officer along with the draft application or listed as a deliverable to be received at least 30
days prior to the initiation of each data collection or data compilation activity. Responsibilities
for development of Quality  Assurance Project Plan, specific guidance and requirements for their
development, schedules for their submission,  review and approval are described in more detail in
Attachment 7.
                                          - 17-

-------
     F. OUTPUTS AND OUTCOMES

This section describes what specific requirements are needed to produce and submit outputs.

1.  Progress and Final Report Outputs

Quarterly or semi-annual and final progress reports are document outputs that must be included
in each Work Plan and comply with EPA Order 5700.7, Environmental Results for Assistance
Agreements.  These reports must contain a Project Narrative that documents the progress made
in achieving the objectives of project work plans as presented in the application. Each report
will contain 1) a comparison of actual accomplishments with the anticipated outputs and
outcomes; 2) reasons why anticipated outcomes were exceeded or not met; 3) problems
encountered during the performance period, which may interfere with meeting program/project
objectives; 4) if applicable, proposed remedies; 5) information on the rate of expenditure versus
progress on the project; 6) if applicable, information on equipment purchased during the
reporting period; and 7) additional pertinent information, including, when appropriate, analysis
and information of cost overruns or high unit costs or unanticipated economics.

As stated in EPA Order 5700.7, the Agency's Project Officer must assure and evaluate that
interim (quarterly or semi-annual) and final performance reports submitted by the recipients
under 40 C.F.  R.  Sections 30.51 and 30.71 (Non-Profit Organizations & Universities), and
interim and final non-construction grant performance reports submitted by recipients under
Sections 31.40 and 31.50 (i.e., Monitoring and Reporting Program Performance and Closeout,
respectively for State and local governments), adequately address progress in achieving agreed-
upon outputs  and outcomes.  This includes, where necessary, ensuring that performance reports
provide a satisfactory explanation of why outcomes or outputs were not achieved.

Attached to the semi-annual or quarterly reports should be an updated Work Plan and Progress
Made Performance Results Under Assistance Agreements Form that was submitted with your
application. The Progress Report and Work Plan and Progress Made Performance Results Under
Assistance Form will enable the Project Officer to determine if the recipient is fulfilling its
obligations as outlined in the Work Plan and assess the quality of the data (determine if the data
have met or exceeded the level of quality specified for the needs of the project).

A comprehensive schedule for submittal of quarterly progress, milestones, quality management
plans, quality assurance project plans, data, information, and document output submissions, and
final reports is required within the Work Plan.  The recipient agrees to deliver to EPA all
products by the dates outlined in the Work Plan accompanying the application, following the
procedures described in the Work Plan and the most recent approved version of the applicable
quality assurance project plans.  The recipient will deliver to EPA all outputs resulting from all
programs (federally funded and non-federal match) described within the Work Plan.
                                          -18-

-------
2.  Data/Information and Document Outputs

The Chesapeake Bay Program has adopted a comprehensive set of guidelines and policies
addressing the management and submission of data, information and documents.  Data,
information and documents must be submitted electronically in a format identified in Attachment
8 unless otherwise stipulated in the Work Plan. The Work Plan must describe the data and
information management procedures to be followed to ensure the quality and timely delivery of
data and/or information. Specifically, the Work Plan must describe the plan for adhering to the
Chesapeake Bay Program data management guidelines as documented in Attachment 8.  Please
refer to Attachments 8 and 9A and/or B for additional policies and guidelines, as well as specific
formatting information for outputs.

In select cases when electronic submission of an output is not possible, the recipient and the
Project Officer will determine in advance and clearly document in the final Work Plan the exact
format for submission of the outputs.  Electronic outputs can include reports, graphics,
spreadsheets, imagery, data files, audio, and digital video products.  More detailed guidance
regarding formats for submission of electronic outputs is provided in Attachment 8.

Outputs that are videos or printed material meant for the  public, such as brochures, fact sheets, or
publications,  should have the CBP logo and a short narrative statement stating that the
publication was funded in part through a grant/cooperative agreement from the EPA CBPO.
These items, once finalized, are to be an output within the Work Plan.

All data and information generated through the funds awarded by the U.S. EPA whether direct
CBPO funding or indirect cost sharing, is public information and shall be made available to the
public, unless there is  a grant/cooperative agreement condition that specifies otherwise.
3. Program Management Outputs

In 2008. the Chesapeake Bay Program developed the Chesapeake Action Plan (CAP). The CAP
describes tools to enhance coordination and integration of Partner activities to restore the
Chesapeake Bay and watershed and to better relate Partner activities to environmental progress
and results. One of these tools is the Chesapeake Registry (formerly known as the Activity
Integration Plan) which catalogues Partner's current and planned activities and the associated
resources.

For each output described in the Work Plan, the recipient agrees to assist the Project Officer in
the completion of an entry into the Chesapeake Registry (http://cap.chcsapeakebay.net:8080).
This requires assisting the Project Officer in documenting the thematic area, location, contact,
resources, milestones and nature of each activity.  The grant recipient is responsible for inputting
state matching dollars.  Detailed reporting guidance is available at
http://cap.chesapeakebay.net/does/CAP
                                          - 19-

-------
FINANCIAL

This section provides information regarding cost share requirements, in-kind calculations for
EPA on-site grantees, and information regarding the Financial Status Report requirements.

       A. COST SHARE REQUIREMENTS

As stated previously, the Chesapeake Bay Program is funded under the Clean Water Act, Section
117. State and Local Governments receiving assistance under any of the provisions of Section
117 must comply with 40 CFR 31.24 and all other applicants must comply with 40 CFR 30.23.
EPA requires assurances that cost share funds are being spent for activities such as staff working
on bay related projects, or other projects in direct support of the Chesapeake Bay Agreements.
Cost share sources must be from non-federal sources. In-kind services, such as volunteer hours
can be used in lieu of a cash match. The rates associated with these volunteer hours must be
similar to those of related work efforts and be approved by your Project Officer.

Signatory jurisdictions applying for implementation and monitoring grants under Section 117(e)
(1)(A) and 117(e)(l)(B) must identify 50% cost share of total project costs (equal match/dollar
for dollar). All applicants applying for grants under Section 117(d) must commit to a cost share
ranging from 5 to 50 percent, as determined at the sole discretion of EPA.  This determination
will be made  on a grant-by-grant basis and EPA will promptly inform the applicant of the
selected cost  share.  This information  will be stated in Request for Proposals (RFPs) or Agency
policy.  Applicants applying for small watershed grants under Section 117(g)(2) must commit to
a cost share of 25% of the total project cost.  All other applicants applying for grants under
Section 117 must commit to a cost share of 5% of the total project costs. EPA will seek
assurances that the flow of the project funds  will not be impeded by loss of personnel  or services
during the course of the project period.

In addition to the cost share requirement, recipients must adhere to the requirement in the Clean
Water Act, Section 117 - "Administrative Costs".  This section requires a 10%  cap for
administrative costs. The cost of salaries and fringe benefits incurred in administering the grant
shall not exceed  10% of the Federal grant amount.  Recipients are required to submit a
completed Administrative Cost Cap Worksheet with their application (Attachment 10).

Any changes  to the administrative cost percentage will be based on EPA determination and will
be stated in the Request for Proposal (RFP).

     B. EPA IN-KIND

The dollar value  associated with providing space, supplies, etc., for grantees located on-site at
EPA is considered EPA In-Kind. If your grant/cooperative agreement supports staff housed at
the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office, the project budget within your application  must
include the cost to house the employee(s) at the EPA office.  When calculating the cost share
requirements, the total value that would be cost-shared is the EPA in-kind and the federal share
combined. Contact your Project Officer to obtain the EPA in-kind dollar amount.
                                          -20-

-------
     C. FEDERAL FINANCIAL REPORT (FFR)- SF-425:

Please note the following change in how recipients are to report the financial status of their
grants:

"Effective October 1, 2009, EPA grantees should begin using the new SF-425, Federal
Financial Report (FFR), to report on the financial status of their grants. The FFR replaces
the SF-269 and SF-269a, Financial Status Report (FSR), and the SF-272 and SF272a,
Federal Cash Transactions Report. A blank, fillable FFR is available at the Las Vegas
Finance Center's (LVFC) website: MfjK/Tvwjw^^
The terms and conditions of your existing EPA assistance agreenient(s) require submission
of a final Financial Status Report and, in some cases, interim and/or annual FSRs. Effective
October 1, this information should be submitted on the SF-425 rather than the SF-269.

Only financial status information is required by EPA. Recipients are no longer required to
submit Federal Cash Transaction information formerly reported on the SF-272 (FFR lines
lOa through lOc). Therefore, all fields on the FFR need to be filled out except for lOa, lOb
and lOc.

Final FFRs are due to EPA no later than 90 days after the end of the grant budget/project
period.  If your assistance agreement requires submission of an interim or annual financial
status report, please submit the SF-425 form (FFR) following the schedule stipulated in the
terms and conditions of the agreement.  All FFRs should be sent to the Las Vegas Finance
Center. Fax number, mailing and email addresses are provided at:


If you have any questions, please contact your LVFC financial specialist. If you do not
know your specialist, a list with contact information can be found at:


In summary, a FFR (SF 245) is required 90 days after the close of the budget period. If the
budget period is longer than one year, an interim FFR is required at the end of each year. Cost
share ratios stated in the application and budget must be included in the final FFR.

POST AWARD MONITORING

After the assistance award is approved, the Project Officer must ensure that Federal funds are
being spent appropriately. To do this, the Project Officer must:  1) review the progress reports
and other work outputs to assure the recipient is fulfilling the obligations as outlined in the work
plan, applicable regulations, and programmatic terms  and conditions in the agreement; 2)
conduct Mid-Year and Close-out monitoring reviews  in accordance with EPA Order 5700.6; and
3) work with the EPA Grants Office to make modifications as needed to the assistance
agreement based on the recipient's request and EPA's  discretion.
                                        -21 -

-------

-------