Attachment 10 Chesapeake Bay Program Office Most Effective Basins Funding Guidance This document describes the methodology EPA followed to establish the most effective use of these funds and the best locations for these practices to be implemented to make the greatest progress toward achieving water quality standards in the Chesapeake Bay. This document, updated in March 2023 to reflect a simplified methodology for implementing Most Effective Basins (MEB) funding, supersedes all previous versions. FY 2023 Most Effective Basins Funding Allocations In the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 Appropriations Conference Report, $8 million was targeted to the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) Budget for "state-based implementation in the most effective basins." Additionally, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Infrastructure), signed into law on November 15, 2021, has authorized significant additional funding for Chesapeake Bay restoration. For Fiscal Year (FY) 2023, EPA is providing $15 million in Infrastructure funding for areas in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed that are most effective for nitrogen reduction. This results in an unprecedented $23 million for MEB in FY 2023. This funding is being allocated based on jurisdictions' commitments to reduce nitrogen from all sources to meet their 2025 Planning Targets. Pennsylvania's nitrogen load reduction is based on their commitment to meet their Phase 3 Watershed Implementation Plan. Table 1 shows the nitrogen reduction commitment from each jurisdiction for all sources from 2021 to the relevant 2025 goal, and the percentage of the total watershed-wide reduction among jurisdictions. There is also a minimum amount of funding, set at three percent of the total funding allocated for MEB, for each jurisdiction. Combining the minimum allocation with the nitrogen reduction commitments results in the final allocation shown in the Table 1. This funding is split between the annual appropriation allocation and the infrastructure allocation. Table 1: MEB Funding Al ocations Percent of Nitrogen Fund Totals Funds w/ Commitment Percent Total w/ Minimum Minimum Allocation - Allocation - (millions of Nitrogen Funding Funding Levels CBPO Annual Infrastructure lbs) Commitment Levels Added Added Appropriation Act Funding DC 0 0% $650,000 3% $226,087 $423,913 DE 1.8 6% $1,187,669 5% $413,102 $774,567 MD 4.9 15% $3,170,019 14% $1,102,615 $2,067,404 NY 0.8 2% $650,000 3% $226,087 $423,913 PA 22.2 66% $14,310,129 62% $4,977,436 $9,332,693 VA 3.7 11% $2,382,183 10% $828,586 $1,553,597 WV 0 0% $650,000 3% $226,087 $423,913 Total 33.4 100% $23,000,000 100% $8,000,000 $15,000,000 This allocation will fund implementation in MEBs, based on load effectiveness. Load effectiveness is a measure of the ability of management practices implemented in a given area (basin) to have a positive effect on dissolved Revised April 2023 1 ------- Attachment 10 oxygen in the Chesapeake Bay.1 Load effectiveness is the combination of three factors: land to water, delivery, and dissolved oxygen response. The scale used to determine load effectiveness is the State-River basin segmentation that is described in the EPA's Chesapeake Bay Effectiveness Rationale. In January 2021, Executive Order 14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, announced Justice40, which mandates that at least 40% of the benefits of certain federal programs must flow to disadvantaged communities. Consistent with this Executive Order 14008, 40% of these funds should support projects that provide direct benefits to disadvantaged communities, as described below. The selection of MEBs to increase benefits in disadvantaged communities considers two factors: load effectiveness and disadvantaged communities. Disadvantaged communities are identified based on demographic metrics from the American Community Survey. Disadvantaged communities are identified by the following variables. All variables except percent low income utilize the 80th percentile as the threshold to be included in that group: • Percent Low income: Defined as ratio of income to cost of living that is less than two. Data is presented as a census block group with a percentage of population that is low income >=50%. This definition comes from work completed by the CBP Diversity Workgroup based on "best professional judgement" in terms of interpreting this metric. • Percent Unemployment: All those who did not have a job at all during the reporting period, made at least one specific active effort to find a job during the prior 4 weeks, and were available for work (unless temporarily ill). • Percent in linguistic isolation: Percent of households in which no one age 14 and over speaks English "very well" or speaks English only (as a fraction of households). • Percent less than high school education: Percent of individuals age 25 and over with less than high school degree. • Percent under age 5: Percent of individuals under age 5 as a fraction of population. • Percent over age 64: Percent of individuals over age 64 as a fraction of the population. Eligible Uses and Recipients This funding is intended for use by state and local entities. After a Bay watershed jurisdiction or other grantee is awarded MEB funding, the grantee is expected to provide this funding directly to support implementation projects, or through contracts or subgrants to state and/or local entities, based on the state and local entities' ability to reduce nutrient loading while minimizing the impacts from impervious surfaces. Up to 25% of this funding can be used to support technical assistance directly to local communities and to develop plans and projects that will lead to direct implementation. This money can be used to fund both proven and new, innovative practices. The most effective basins for focusing this funding are identified below in Table 2 of this guidance. The 40% of funding that is to be directed toward disadvantaged communities is intended to focus on the census block groups that were identified by the criteria list above. These census block groups can be seen on the MEB map 1 Load effectiveness is the same measure known as relative effectiveness used to calculate allocations as described in Section 6.3 of the 2010 Bay TMDL. It was also used to calculate Phase WIP III nitrogen planning targets in 2017. 2 Revised April 2023 ------- Attachment 10 viewer and associated story map. Where a jurisdiction chooses to award these funds to state or local entities, Bay watershed jurisdictions must describe in their grant work plan the mechanisms they will use to distribute their share of this funding for implementation of projects in the disadvantaged communities in these basins. Implementation activities in the most effective basins will be in support of the 2014 Chesapeake Watershed Agreement, including Bay watershed jurisdictions' Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs). Jurisdictions should give priority to funding those activities that will accelerate the pace for meeting WIP commitments while addressing co-benefits beyond water quality improvements. In deciding which implementation activities to fund, jurisdictions should also consider the timeliness and cost-effectiveness of the activities in contributing to nitrogen reduction. Jurisdictions are expected to be able to track BMP implementation activities funded with this money. Jurisdictions should submit these practice implementation data to CBPO through the National Environmental Information Exchange Network (NEIEN), in accordance with Attachment 4 of the Grant Guidance. Jurisdictions should use their existing CBRAP funding if they need to improve tracking, verification, and reporting of these implementation activities. Award Process and Budget Guidance General Award and Workplan Requirements MEB allocations funded through CBPO's annual appropriation will be awarded as part of each jurisdiction's CBIG grant2. For tracking and reporting purposes, MEB funds must be included in each jurisdiction's CBIG workplan as a separate objective. As required by EPA policy, MEB allocations funded via the Infrastructure Act will be issued as a separate award from each jurisdictions' other CWA 117(e) implementation grants. The introduction section of the workplan must include the following statement: "This project is funded by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act." In addition, the introduction section should provide a general description of the objectives covered by the grant and a description of the relationship to the WIP and/or two-year milestones, where applicable, or to Management Strategies and two-year Logic & Action Plans of other goals and outcomes from the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement. Match Waiver and Reduction Options for Unfractured-Funded MEB Grants To advance equitability in the grantmaking process, the Infrastructure Act language provides EPA discretion to waive or reduce statutorily required non-federal cost shares on these funds3. Accordingly, jurisdictions may submit a written request to CBPO to either a) waive the 50% cost-share or b) reduce the 50% cost share for their Infrastructure MEB grant for FY 2023-26. Jurisdictions requesting a reduction of match must clearly identify the requested match level in their request. EPA will consider requests to waive or reduce match where any of the following apply: 2 On a limited basis, CBPO management may approve the for MEB - CBPO Annual Appropriation funds to be awarded as part of a jurisdictions' CBRAP grant. 3 This match waiver or reduction authority applies only to grants funded via the Infrastructure Act only. 3 Revised April 2023 ------- Attachment 10 • Waiving or reducing the non-federal share will accelerate the implementation of projects that provide direct or indirect benefits to disadvantaged communities; • MEB funds will be awarded to a federally recognized tribe or intertribal consortia comprised of federally recognized tribes; or • Not waiving or reducing the non-federal share requirement will limit meaningful competition of funds or prevent projects from moving forward due to lack of available matching funds. Requests must be submitted in writing to the CBPO Infrastructure Coordinator, Matt Robinson (robiiisoii.matthewgepa.gov). with a cc to the EPA project officer for the Infrastructure MEB grant. To ensure timely processing for the FY 2023 award cycle, jurisdictions are requested to submit their request as soon as practicable, but no later than Friday, April 14, 2023. Additional Reporting Requirements for Infrastructure-Funded Grants Project-Level Reporting Infrastructure funded grants include additional post-award reporting requirements that help maintain accountability to taxpayers and advance equity. All Infrastructure-related grant and cooperative agreement programs must track and report post-award information on the status of award-specific goals and objectives, including 1) project-level location data and 2) the phase of project level implementation. CBPO is currently finalizing procurement of a reporting system for location-based project data and expects to release additional information to partners in summer 2023. In the interim, recipients should track and retain this information within their grant files. USA Spending Recipients are reminded of the requirement as established by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act for reporting on subawards and executive compensation. We expect that there will be enhanced monitoring of recipient compliance with these requirements. More information can be found in the EPA General Terms and Conditions (subsection Reporting Subawards and Executive Compensation). List of Most Effective Basins Table 2 below lists the most effective basins in which implementation using these funds is to occur. Where work in the identified basins in not feasible, EPA will consider on a limited, case-by-case basis expansion to additional basins not identified in this list. To request consideration for additional basins, a jurisdiction must submit a request in writing to Lee McDonnell (mcdomiell.leegepa.gov). Chief of the CBPO Science, Analysis, and Implementation Branch, with a cc to the EPA project officer. The request must identify the specific basins requested for consideration and the rationale explaining how implementation in this basin will advance the jurisdiction's nutrient reduction efforts. Revised April 2023 4 ------- Attachment 10 Table 2: MEBs Ranked jy Total Nitrogen (TN) Reduction Effectiveness Rank4 Jurisdiction State-Rivers TN Effectiveness TN Reductions Made to Date TN Load Remaining to Reduce Watershed Size (sq. mi.) 1 PA York Indian Rock Dam 22.87 14,237 218,825 21 2 PA Black Creek 19.39 27,953 63,440 62 3 PA Codorus Creek 19.11 9,916 367,864 66 4 PA Safe Harbor Dam 17.51 107,726 799,160 114 5 PA Chiques Creek 17.16 551,740 1,857,828 126 6 PA Conestoga Creek 16.68 953,008 3,007,086 278 7 PA Little Swatara Creek 16.34 0 1,110,781 99 8 PA Pequea Creek 16.12 403,680 1,865,801 155 9 PA Shamokin Creek 16.08 12,615 332,191 137 10 PA Mahanoy Creek 15.96 17,014 382,719 157 11 PA Mill Creek 15.58 220,956 668,640 56 12 PA Octoraro Creek 15.11 259,512 1,974,658 176 13 PA Deer Creek 15.06 25,340 218,681 25 14 PA Catawissa Creek 14.86 21,243 301,544 153 15 WV Stony River 14.59 2,004 10,285 10 16 PA Codorus Creek West Branch 14.58 31,409 308,201 50 17 MD Little Pipe Creek 14.42 304,558 517,846 83 18 PA Swatara Creek 14.32 219,465 1,600,423 396 19 MD Deer Creek 14.11 201,343 626,682 146 20 PA Cocalico Creek 14.1 303,655 1,094,543 140 21 PA Mahantango Creek 14.08 124,321 793,410 165 22 PA Roaring Creek 13.84 27,979 330,495 88 23 PA Nescopeck Creek 13.83 94,098 167,141 112 24 PA Wiconisco Creek 13.8 181,818 368,808 116 25 MD Bloomington/Jennings Randolph 13.64 10,882 41,235 63 26 PA Middle Creek 13.64 0 817,242 177 27 WV Mt. Storm Power Station Dam/Stony River Dam 13.53 9,634 58,170 49 28 MD Susquehanna River 13.37 9,581 65,361 28 29 PA East Licking Creek 13.37 10,549 76,561 46 30 VA Lower Eastern Shore Tidal Drainage 13.26 145,008 1,224,541 219 31 MD Savage River Dam 13.25 13,567 30,384 56 32 PA Tuscarora Creek 13.08 38,911 590,526 224 33 PA Sherman Creek 12.93 0 778,438 276 4 Basins ranked below 198 reflect approved expansions to the MEB list. 5 Revised April 2023 ------- Attachment 10 34 MD Octoraro Creek 12.84 51,357 123,333 35 35 PA Codorus Creek South Branch 12.81 45,232 703,913 117 36 PA Buffalo Creek 12.79 28,828 859,729 207 37 PA Alvin R. Bush Dam 12.78 1,196 18,824 95 38 PA Juniata River 12.71 207,199 1,992,742 767 39 PA Larrys Creek 12.69 32,513 83,963 89 40 PA Susquehanna River 12.62 1,360,081 4,779,581 2262 41 PA Penns Creek 12.59 107,376 1,115,206 377 42 PA Fishing Creek 12.5 96,073 653,637 271 43 MD Potomac River North Branch 12.36 62,959 136,977 157 44 MD Conowingo Dam 12.24 13,275 42,727 23 45 WV Bloomington/Jennings Randolph 12.21 1,663 70,956 81 46 MD Muddy Creek 12.08 1,003 4,615 2 47 WV Potomac River North Branch 12.06 18,036 160,819 162 48 MD Monocacy River 11.99 1,008,035 1,657,042 448 49 PA Sinnemahoning Creek 11.99 5,284 11,534 72 50 MD Lingamore Creek 11.88 212,204 380,907 89 51 PA Chillisquaque Creek 11.87 77,137 545,406 112 52 PA Warrior Ridge Dam 11.87 15,990 129,815 78 53 PA Susquehanna River West Branch 11.78 348,229 2,137,577 1745 54 PA Holtwood Dam 11.73 9,014 242,256 50 55 PA Bald Eagle Creek 11.71 151,794 600,282 383 56 PA Aughwick Creek 11.7 9,009 94,102 47 57 VA Pocomoke River 11.67 5,584 108,298 24 58 MD Jones Falls 11.66 5,654 170,604 58 59 PA Muddy Creek 11.66 50,272 855,327 137 60 MD Lower Western Shore Tidal Drainage 11.64 27,704 714,109 275 61 MD Savage River 11.64 17,958 42,274 60 62 PA White Deer Creek 11.52 0 20,073 45 63 PA Broad Creek 11.51 99 2,602 1 64 MD Big Pipe Creek 11.48 281,098 507,253 109 65 PA Cush Creek 11.46 94,404 608,556 191 66 MD Middle Western Shore Tidal Drainage 11.42 7,177 332,988 118 67 PA Foster Joseph Sayers Dam 11.42 26,444 120,565 73 68 MD Broad Creek 11.34 62,779 140,252 40 69 PA Beech Creek 11.32 6,483 72,132 171 70 PA George B. Stevenson Dam 11.25 1,764 2,925 27 6 Revised April 2023 ------- Attachment 10 11 PA Little Juniatta River 11.1 68,670 728,326 343 72 DE Nanticoke River 11 112,513 1,009,792 91 73 PA Blacklog Creek 10.98 6,420 77,292 73 74 DE Lower Eastern Shore Tidal Drainage 10.96 100,031 2,012,862 232 75 PA Conowingo Dam 10.9 109,679 850,259 102 76 MD Wills Creek 10.88 14,380 44,297 61 77 PA Conogoguinet Creek 10.84 0 2,397,677 458 78 PA Huntington Creek 10.82 72,545 114,179 114 79 PA Big Elk Creek 10.73 88,005 349,503 42 80 PA Wills Creek 10.73 39,775 283,946 193 81 PA Bennette Branch 10.54 24,401 96,810 377 82 PA Quittapahilla Creek 10.39 23,640 643,461 77 83 PA Conococheague Creek West Branch 10.37 0 1,212,735 198 84 PA Texas Creek 10.36 45,659 117,707 180 85 PA Muncy Creek 10.32 119,615 318,205 204 86 VA Great Wicomico River 10.26 59,620 370,341 128 87 PA Meshoppen Creek 10.15 126,494 132,856 115 88 PA Yellow Breeches Creek 10.05 0 744,883 220 89 WV Back Creek 10 0 109,425 106 90 MD Little Conococheague Creek 9.97 24,013 57,469 17 91 PA Kettle Creek 9.97 3,104 56,482 152 92 PA Moshannon Creek 9.95 16,234 149,836 274 93 PA Driftwood Branch 9.94 34,099 14,962 95 94 MD Tonoloway Creek 9.9 623 3,070 2 95 MD Licking Creek 9.87 7,539 29,706 27 96 PA Conococheague Creek 9.84 891 1,981,838 304 97 PA Juniata River Frankstown Branch 9.81 1,887 935,455 396 98 NY Owego Creek 9.72 14,266 21,236 13 99 MD Nanticoke River 9.71 53,543 120,930 20 100 MD Winters Run 9.7 18,598 186,226 58 101 PA Bowman Creek 9.7 50,820 60,678 120 102 MD Conococheague Creek 9.63 102,907 282,130 66 103 WV Sleepy Creek 9.63 16,944 86,747 125 104 DE Middle Eastern Shore Tidal Drainage 9.61 15,869 124,020 19 105 PA Lycoming Creek 9.61 42,472 199,800 273 106 MD Potomac River 9.6 320,501 799,081 373 107 MD Big Elk Creek 9.56 4,727 24,146 11 108 PA Branch Creek 9.56 0 214,490 46 7 Revised April 2023 ------- Attachment 10 109 PA Wallis Run 9.55 5,586 19,906 37 110 PA Cayuta Creek 9.53 2,067 5,048 2 111 MD Great Seneca Creek 9.35 122,870 214,447 102 112 PA Sinnemahoning Creek First Fork 9.33 7,362 77,126 240 113 MD Antietam Creek East Branch 9.32 9,267 22,410 8 114 PA Potomac River 9.3 1,140 12,444 3 115 PA Wyalusing Creek 9.3 222,476 245,752 220 116 MD Upper Western Shore Tidal Drainage 9.29 42,521 264,224 141 117 PA Pine Creek 9.24 57,915 219,806 599 118 PA Sideling Hill Creek 9.23 19,918 384,431 284 119 MD Middle Eastern Shore Tidal Drainage 9.2 638,248 1,771,391 348 120 PA Licking Creek 9.19 27,154 407,836 186 121 PA Conewago Creek 9.11 282,392 1,775,750 510 122 PA Lackawanna River 9.07 33,808 206,810 348 123 DC Bull Run 8.93 0 4,086 20 124 MD Gunpowder Falls 8.92 84,899 376,374 175 125 PA Little Northeast Creek 8.9 2,852 66,473 8 126 PA Loyalsock Creek 8.9 43,639 204,007 377 127 MD Georges Creek 8.75 14,601 37,387 75 128 MD Choptank River 8.73 139,913 551,765 108 129 MD Lower Patuxent Tidal Drainage 8.65 75,751 562,738 300 130 WV Cacapon River 8.63 3,814 22,942 61 131 MD Antietam Creek 8.58 262,951 641,720 178 132 MD Marshyhope Creek 8.52 221,074 589,651 119 133 VA Sleepy Creek 8.52 0 15,459 20 134 MD Loch Raven Dam 8.43 3,790 45,168 31 135 VA South Branch Potomac 8.39 0 69,628 59 136 MD Seneca Creek 8.38 38,860 75,753 27 137 PA Mehoopany Creek 8.38 28,506 41,128 123 138 DE Deep Creek 8.37 3,913 233,516 30 139 WV Potomac River 8.37 53,672 433,956 320 140 MD Western Run 8.32 83,020 295,407 118 141 PA Little Conococheague Creek 8.32 0 517 1 142 PA Spring Creek 8.29 94,318 363,288 146 143 WV Potomac River South Branch 8.26 107,838 573,565 543 144 MD Evitts Creek 8.2 5,098 20,560 31 145 NY Nanticoke Creek 8.2 78,095 106,981 114 8 Revised April 2023 ------- Attachment 10 146 MD Little Northeast Creek 8.19 59,312 161,058 48 147 PA Curwensville Dam 8.18 11,604 27,207 53 148 MD Hunting Creek 8.16 203 44,248 26 149 NY Tioughnioga River West Branch 8.15 192,589 180,026 104 150 WV Opequon Creek 8.13 31,496 403,725 192 151 VA Potomac River South Branch North Fork 8.11 577 7,336 38 152 DC Potomac River 8.09 401 30,511 14 153 MD Marsh Run 8.06 26,001 78,497 21 154 MD Lower Potomac Tidal Drainage 8.05 60,460 716,945 428 155 PA Antietam Creek East Branch 7.97 0 429,574 86 156 NY Tioughnioga River 7.95 243,695 220,389 208 157 MD Middle Patuxent River 7.92 89,327 148,208 58 158 WV North River 7.89 13,878 198,766 206 159 NY Tioughnioga Creek 7.88 227,968 239,600 193 160 VA Lower Potomac Tidal Drainage 7.87 83,589 563,421 470 161 MD Marsh Creek 7.83 22,088 40,985 11 162 MD Nassawango Creek 7.82 129,103 130,002 68 163 WV Reeds Creek 7.73 1,563 18,853 65 164 NY Susquehanna River 7.72 682,455 751,626 890 165 DC Anacostia River 7.71 1,380 37,452 18 166 MD Lower Eastern Shore Tidal Drainage 7.67 805,230 1,713,780 454 167 PA Tonoloway Creek 7.67 13,483 261,108 112 168 MD North East Branch Anacostia River 7.61 7,435 103,822 75 169 WV Potomac River South Branch North Fork 7.5 16,538 113,755 212 170 MD Chester River 7.49 70,737 161,788 35 171 PA Chest Creek 7.45 42,823 152,933 129 172 MD Patuxent River 7.43 70,154 259,029 176 173 PA Fifteen Mile Creek 7.43 788 8,244 12 174 MD Tuckahoe River 7.42 222,241 657,718 150 175 NY Owego Creek East Branch 7.4 88,049 97,821 101 176 NY Chenango River 7.37 621,464 577,651 614 177 NY Catatonk Creek 7.36 105,054 135,579 151 178 MD Patapsco River 7.35 96,286 355,979 204 179 PA Antietam Creek 7.33 0 155,266 20 180 PA Monocacy River 7.29 10,592 116,224 67 181 PA Little Tonoloway Creek 7.28 0 12,888 10 9 Revised April 2023 ------- Attachment 10 182 MD Pocomoke River 7.19 817,630 915,510 301 183 MD Upper Eastern Shore Tidal Drainage 7.19 1,181,710 2,867,947 748 184 MD Catoctin Creek 7.16 178,014 314,785 120 185 VA Shenandoah River South Fork 7.14 38,566 1,299,039 618 186 DC Rock Creek 7.1 134 15,957 10 187 DE Upper Eastern Shore Tidal Drainage 7.09 51,447 148,987 36 188 PA Little Loyalsock Creek 7.08 25,054 85,224 82 189 WV Shenandoah River 7.08 12,912 48,460 103 190 MD Fifteen Mile Creek 7.07 1,606 15,025 50 191 PA Marsh Creek 7.06 86,013 488,599 161 192 WV South Branch Potomac 7.06 43,742 188,358 208 193 PA Sugar Creek 7.04 176,783 262,318 190 194 MD Conococheague Creek West Branch 7 0 98 0 195 VA Back Creek 6.98 751 155,817 309 196 VA Shenandoah River 6.98 12,912 48,460 249 197 MD Little Tonoloway Creek 6.96 5,857 18,895 15 198 NY Owego Creek West Branch 6.95 49,514 64,209 77 201 VA Lower Rappahannock Tidal Drainage 6.8 157,795 920,193 493 202 VA Opequon Creek 6.8 0 285,409 151 225 VA North River 6.3 9,180 234,747 53 228 VA Cat Point Creek 6.2 25,753 122,328 72 229 VA Piscataway Creek 6.1 13,600 83,603 53 233 VA Shenandoah River North Fork 5.9 1,239 1,926,715 860 Revised April 2023 10 ------- |