U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM OFFICE
2023 GRANT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT GUIDANCE
Updated April 21, 2023
Substantive updates to this Guidance are indicated in bold
Chesapeake Bay Program
Science. Restoration. Partnership.
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Chesapeake Bay Program Office
2023 Grant and Cooperative Agreement Guidance
The attached Chesapeake Bay Program Office Grant and Cooperative Agreement
Guidance dated April 27,2023, is hereby issued pursuant to EPA Delegation No. 2-46 Chesapeake
Bay Program and EPA Region 3 Delegation No. 2-46, which, together, delegate to the Director of
the Chesapeake Bay Program the authority to promulgate Agency Guidance for grants issued
under Clean Water Act Section 117.
Digitally signed by
DAVID CAMPBELL
April 27, 2023
CAMPBELL
Date
David Campbell, Interim Director
Chesapeake Bay Program Office
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD 1
A. OVERVIEW OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM 2
B. AUTHORITIES AND DESCRIPTIONS 5
1. CWA SECTION 117(D) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND GENERAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS 5
2. CWA SECTION 117(E)(1)(A) - CHESAPEAKE BAY IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS (CBIG) 6
3. CWA SECTIONS 117(E)(1)(A) - CHESAPEAKE BAY REGULATORY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
PROGRAM GRANTS (CBRAP) 7
4. CWA SECTION 117(E)(1)(B) MONITORING GRANTS 8
5. CWA SECTION 117(G)(2) SMALL WATERSHED GRANTS (SWG) 8
C. FY 2023 JURISDICTION IMPLEMENTATION GRANT FUNDING ALLOCATIONS 9
1. CHESAPEAKE BAY IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS (CBIG) FUNDING ALLOCATION 9
2. CHESAPEAKE BAY REGULATORY AND ACCOUNTABILITY PROGRAM (CBRAP) GRANTS
FUNDING ALLOCATION 9
3. CONOWINGO WIP DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION FUNDING 10
4. LOCAL GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION FUNDING ALLOCATION (TO CBIG AND/OR CBRAP)
11
5. MOST EFFECTIVE BASINS FUNDING ALLOCATION 11
6. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT FUNDING 11
7. SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING FOR FOREST BUFFERS, URBAN TREE CANOPIES, AND WETLANDS
12
D. PRE-AWARD INFORMATION AND APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS 13
1. COMPETITION PROCESS 13
2. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS 13
a. Agency Assistance Listings 14
b. Application Deadlines and Submission Process 15
3. MULTI-YEAR AWARDS 18
4. WORK PLAN REQUIREMENTS 18
a. General Information 18
b. Introduction Section Information by Grant Program 19
c. Environmental Data 19
d. Outputs 20
e. Outcomes - Linkage to 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement Goals 21
f. Addressing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Justice (DEIJ) in Work Plans 22
-------
g. Linkage to EPA's Strategic Plan 23
h. Linkage to Jurisdiction's Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) Commitments, Two-
Year Milestones and Conowingo WIP 24
i. Linkage to Addressing Priority Practices, Watersheds, and Strategies 24
j. Additional Work Plan Requirements 31
k. Work Plan Content Specific to CBRAP Grants 32
I. Additional Work Plan Content Specific to Local Government Implementation Funding40
5. FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS 43
a. Cost-Share Requirements 43
b. EPA In-kind and Supplies 44
c. Indirect cost rates 44
d. Allowability and Reasonability of Costs 45
E. POST-AWARD REQUIREMENTS 46
1. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 46
2. NEW OR REVISED GRANTS POLICIES 46
3. QUALITY ASSURANCE 48
a. Quality Management Plan (QMP) 49
b. Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) 50
4. PROJECT PROGRESS REPORTS 51
5. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CBIG AND CBRAP GRANTS 51
a. Data Submission Schedules 52
b. Wetland Data 52
6. UNLIQUIDATED OBLIGATIONS (ULOS) 53
7. FEDERAL FINANCIAL REPORT (FFR) - SF-425 54
8. MONITORING AND GRANT ENFORCEMENT 54
9. DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION 56
10. MODIFICATIONS TO AWARD DOCUMENTS 57
11. REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS 58
12. SUBAWARDS 58
13. AWARD CLOSEOUT REQUIREMENTS 59
CONCLUSION 60
-------
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Attachment 4
Attachment 5
Attachment 6
Attachment 7
Attachment 8
Attachment 9
Attachment 10
Work Plan Template
Budget Detail Template
Progress Report Template
Chesapeake Bay Program Wastewater Facility and BMP Implementation Data
Submission Specifications and Requirements
Chesapeake Bay Program Guidance and Policies for Data, Information and
Document Outputs Submission
Toxics Data Acquisition Specifications and Data Submission Questionnaire
Grant Application Budget Detail Guidance and Chesapeake Bay Program
Administrative Cost Cap Worksheet Sample
Chesapeake Bay Accountability and Recovery Act (CBARA) Budget Reporting
Funding Allocations for Jurisdiction Implementation Grants
Most Effective Basins Funding Guidance
-------
FOREWORD
This guidance describes how the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Region 3's
Chesapeake Bay Program Office (CBPO) administers grant and cooperative agreement funds to
focus on the restoration and protection of the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed. The success
of this effort is directly linked to the success of the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) partners'
ability to effectively utilize all available resources in reducing the levels of nutrients and
sediment in the Chesapeake Bay, restoring habitats and living resources, bolstering benefits to
underserved communities, and facilitating increased stewardship of the Chesapeake Bay
watershed.
The purpose of this grant guidance is to present nonprofit organizations, state and local
governments, federally recognized tribes, colleges, universities, and interstate agencies with
the best possible information needed to apply for and manage grant and cooperative
agreement funding. This document 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. EPA will revise and redistribute this guidance
periodically to incorporate legislative, regulatory, programmatic and/or other relevant changes.
1 Additional information about Chesapeake Bay Program funding is available at www.sam.gov
under Agency Assistance Listing 66.466 and 66.964.
Recipients should check the following website for the most current grant guidance and
applicable addenda: www.epa.gov/restoration-chesapeake-bav/chesapeake-bay-program-
grant-guidance.
1 Changes from the previous version of this guidance are denoted by bold text for easier identification. If you
have any questions regarding the changes, please contact your EPA project officer.
-------
A. OVERVIEW OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM
The Chesapeake Bay Program is a unique regional, state, federal, and local partnership that has
been directing and conducting the restoration and protection of the Chesapeake Bay since the
signing of the historic Chesapeake Bay Agreement of 1983. Considered a national and
international model forestuarine research and watershed restoration and protection programs,
the CBP partnership is led by the Chesapeake Executive Council - the governors of Delaware,
Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia; the mayor of the District of
Columbia (D.C.); the administrator of EPA; and the chair of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, a
tri-state legislative body. The Executive Council meets annually to establish the policy direction
of the CBP partnership in implementing the Chesapeake Bay agreements. Also invited to
participate in the Executive Council is the Secretary of the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA).
As the largest estuary in the United States and one of the most productive estuaries in the
world, the Chesapeake Bay was this nation's first estuary targeted for restoration and
protection. In the late 1970s, a congressionally funded five-year study was conducted after
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 nonpoint
sources, such as fertilizers running off farmland. The study pinpointed three areas requiring
immediate attention: nutrient over-enrichment (specifically nitrogen and phosphorus),
dwindling underwater Bay grasses, and toxic pollution. When the initial research was
completed, the CBP partnership 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. All states in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed, the District of Columbia, as well as the Chesapeake Bay Commission and EPA
(representing the federal government) are signatories of the current Bay agreement. The
current agreement is formally known as the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement (2014
Agreement).
The first Chesapeake Bay Agreement was a one-page document pledging the partners to work
together to restore the Chesapeake Bay and was signed by the group that later became known
as the Chesapeake Executive Council in 1983. Since that time, three subsequent agreements
have guided the work of the CBP partnership.
The watershed states of Delaware, New York, and West Virginia joined the signatories of the
previous two agreements, the District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, the
Chesapeake Bay Commission, and EPA, in authorizing the 2014 Agreement. This agreement
identifies the CBP partnership's collective commitments for restoring and protecting the
-2-
-------
watershed through 10 goals and 31 outcomes. The goals address the partners' continuing
efforts to improve water quality as well as promote sustainable fisheries, vital habitats, healthy
watersheds, stewardship, land use and conservation, and public access. The goals also confront
critical emerging issues, such as environmental literacy, toxic contaminants, and climate
resiliency of the Bay ecosystem.
While the 10 goals articulate the high-level aspects of the CBP partners' vision, the 31 outcomes
express specific, time-bound, and measurable targets that directly contribute to achieving each
goal. The CBP utilizes an adaptive management decision-making process, based on the
application of scientific processes and continual analyses of monitoring data, to ensure
progress.
To help implement the 2014 Agreement, the CBP partnership, through the CBP's goal
implementation teams (GITs) and workgroups, developed management strategies for each of
the outcomes. The strategies summarize the management process and the collective thinking
of the CBP partnership for each outcome or related group of outcomes. They articulate the
overarching actions needed to achieve the goals and outcomes by 2025, summarize the means
for accomplishing them, as well as methods for monitoring, assessing, reporting progress, and
coordinating actions among partners and stakeholders.
Management strategies are implemented through two-year Logic & Action Plans that identify
specific measures the partnership will take to reach the two-year targets for each outcome.
In 2017, the CBP partnership instituted a Strategy Review System (SRS), a process by which the
partnership seeks to meet the commitments in the 2014 Agreement to "re-evaluate biennially
and update strategies [and two-year Logic & Action Plans] as necessary." The SRS is a two-year
process meant to operationalize adaptive management to improve effectiveness in achieving
Goals and Outcomes. During this process, the partnership reviews its progress toward the 2014
Agreement, identifies management approaches and actions that are or are not working,
considers scientific, fiscal, and policy developments, adjusts management strategies as
appropriate, and develops the next set of two-year Logic & Action Plans. Each quarter, the
Management Board reviews three to six 2014 Agreement Outcomes so that each Outcome is
reviewed at least once every two years.
In 2018, EPA conducted a partnership-approved2 midpoint assessment of progress to
determine if the seven Bay watershed jurisdictions put practices in place to achieve 60% of the
necessary nutrient and sediment reductions to achieve applicable water quality standards in
the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal waters. As part of this midpoint assessment, the CBP
partnership updated its suite of modeling tools - Phase 6 - to reflect the latest science and data
and released Phase III Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) planning targets that were
developed using the Phase 6 suite of modeling tools. Consistent with how grant allocations
were established in the past, EPA used the new Phase 6 modeling tools and the partnership-
2 Approved by the PSC on December 5, 2012 (see Actions and Decisions document).
-3-
-------
approved3 Phase III WIP planning targets to update the CBRAP grants allocation formula.
Individual letters were sent out to each jurisdiction on December 7, 2018, from the Regional
Administrator addressing the grant funding re-allocation for 2019 and beyond.
To achieve program goals and commitments, EPA awards assistance agreements
(grants/cooperative agreements) to nonprofit organizations, state and local governments,
federally recognized tribes, colleges, universities, and interstate agencies. The types of projects
awarded range from the monitoring of underwater bay grasses to environmental education.
This also supports Executive Order 13508.
Seven tribes in Region 3, all located in Virginia within the Bay watershed, have received federal
recognition. Federally recognized tribes have a special status in federal environmental law,
including the Clean Water Act. See, e.g., CWA Section 518(e) (EPA "to treat an Indian tribe as a
State" for various purposes under the statute). Federally recognized tribes are defined in the
statute at CWA Section 518(h). Such tribes are also specifically included in the CWA's definition
of "municipality." See CWA Section 503(4) ("municipality" includes "a city, town, borough,
county, parish, district, association, or other public body created by or pursuant to State law
and having jurisdiction over disposal of sewage, industrial wastes, or other wastes, or an Indian
tribe or an authorized Indian tribal organization.") Due to their CWA status, federally
recognized tribes are eligible for Chesapeake Bay grants under CWA Section 117 on the same
basis as local governments. Moreover, tribes are eligible to receive pass-through funding from
prime recipients of Chesapeake Bay program funds.
3 Approved by the PSC on July 9, 2018 (see Actions and Decisions document).
-4-
-------
B. AUTHORITIES AND DESCRIPTIONS
This section describes the various CBPO grants and the authorities that allow EPA to provide
these funds to nonprofit organizations, state and local governments, federally recognized
tribes, colleges, universities, and interstate agencies.
In November 2000, the President signed the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000, which
included Title ll-Chesapeake Bay Restoration. This Act amended Section 117 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act or CWA) and
established new authorities for the CBP. These new authorities specify the type of work that
can be performed with the funds appropriated for the CBP, the type of funding vehicles (e.g.,
assistance agreement) that can be used, and the types of governments and organizations
eligible to receive funding. The purposes of these amended authorities are to expand and
strengthen cooperative efforts to restore and protect the Chesapeake Bay and to achieve the
goals established in the Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
CWA Grant Requirements
Project applications that involve work in the waters of the United States may require federal
and state permits. For purposes of assuring compliance and minimizing potential conflicts with
permit requirements, applicants and subrecipients applying for funding under the authorities
described below will be required to ascertain whether there is a need for a permit and
document pre-permit application consultation with the relevant regulatory agencies. Applicants
who are awarded grants under any of these authorities must include this requirement in their
funding announcements for subawards, and such pre-permit consultation must be completed
prior to the submittal of the grant or subaward application. If requested by the permitting
agency, pre-permit application consultation may need to include pre-permit application project
site visits by the permitting and regulatory review agencies. In such cases, joint (i.e.,
simultaneous multi-agency) site visits are strongly encouraged. Applicants and subaward
applicants should not assume after completing the pre-application conference the proposed
project will receive authorization by the federal and state permitting agencies. To minimize
potential conflicts with permit requirements, both the grant applicants and grantees issuing
subawards are encouraged to consult with federal (e.g., EPA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)
and/or state permitting and regulatory reviewing agencies on proposed projects prior to the
submission of grant workplans and prior to issuing subawards.
The following describes the various CBPO grants and their CWA authorities.
1. CWA Section 117(d) Technical Assistance and General Assistance Grants
EPA awards these grants competitively to nonprofit organizations, state and local governments,
federally recognized tribes, colleges, universities, and interstate agencies through the RFA
process (see the Competition Process section for further information). These grants are used by
recipients to implement the goals of the Chesapeake Bay agreements through activities that
support:
-5 -
-------
• Sustainable Fisheries
• Vital Habitats
• Water Quality
• Toxic Contaminants
• Healthy Watersheds
• Stewardship
• Land Conservation
• Public Access
• Environmental Literacy
• Climate Resiliency
The Innovative Nutrient and Sediment Reduction (INSR) grants program also falls under this
authority. The INSR grants program supports efforts within the Chesapeake Bay watershed that
vastly accelerate sub-watershed and/or regional scale implementation of nutrient and
sediment reductions with innovative, sustainable, and cost-effective approaches.
Additionally, the Conowingo WIP (CWIP) developed by the partnership also falls under this
authority. The CWIP grants provide funding to support the following activities:
• The development and implementation of the CWIP and associated two-year milestones
to address increased pollutant loadings due to the Conowingo Dam infill;
• The development and implementation of a multijurisdictional financing strategy; and
• The development and maintenance of a system for tracking, verifying, and reporting
progress on the CWIP and two-year milestones providing nutrient and sediment
pollutant load reductions.
2. CWA Section 117(e)(1)(A) - Chesapeake Bay Implementation Grants (CBIG)
The Chesapeake Bay Implementation Grants (CBIG) are authorized under CWA Section
117(e)(1)(A) to signatory jurisdictions. EPA awards these grants non-competitively to any
jurisdiction that has signed the 2014 Agreement (signatory jurisdictions). 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 nonpoint source nutrient and sediment pollution (including atmospheric
deposition as a nonpoint source). Specifically, CBIG awards support the signatory jurisdictions'
implementation of the management strategies and CBP's two-year Logic & Action Plans
developed for each of the applicable outcomes identified in the 2014 Agreement. If the
signatory jurisdictions do not use CWA 117(e)(1)(A) grants for projects consistent with
furthering the 2014 Agreement goals and outcomes, EPA may reallocate, conditionally award,
or withhold funds.
-6-
-------
CBIG awards may support the signatory jurisdictions' implementation of their WIP4 and
milestone commitments, including addressing EPA's evaluation of the WIPs and milestones, and
comparable actions that support nutrient and sediment load reduction goals. In addition, for
those activities that support the Agreement's water quality goal, if the signatory jurisdictions do
not use CWA 117(e)(1)(A) grants for projects consistent with furthering that jurisdiction's
progress on meeting their two-year milestones and/or WIP commitments, EPA may reallocate,
conditionally award, or withhold those water quality-related funds. The funds may also be used
to promote and support diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice (DEIJ) concerns.
3. CWA Sections 117(e)(1)(A) - Chesapeake Bay Regulatory and Accountability Program
Grants fCBRAP)
CBRAP grants aid the signatory jurisdictions in implementing and expanding their respective
regulatory, accountability, assessment, compliance, and enforcement capabilities in support of
reducing nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment loads delivered to the Bay to meet the Water
Quality Goal of the 2014 Agreement and the Bay TMDL. These grants are awarded non-
competitively. CBRAP awards may support the jurisdictions' implementation of their WIP and
related programmatic milestone commitments, including addressing EPA's evaluation of the
WIPs and milestones, and comparable actions that support nutrient and sediment load
reduction goals.
These grants help each of the signatory jurisdictions to:
• Develop/revise regulations/policies, and develop and implement WIPs and two-year
milestones;
• Implement regulatory, tracking, verification, reporting, assessment, and/or monitoring
commitments of the jurisdictions' WIPs and/or two-year milestones or in response to
EPA's evaluation of these documents;
• Issue, reissue, and enforce permits and enforce regulations;
• Develop and implement verification programs following the CBP partnership's
established verification protocols and policies;
• Develop and implement nutrient and sediment credit trading and offset programs;
• Develop and implement technical assistance and guidance documents to support WIP
and/or two-year milestone implementation;
• Provide technical and compliance assistance to landowners; and
• Provide compliance assistance to local governments and regulated entities.
4 Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs) are plans for how each of the Bay jurisdictions, in partnership with
federal and local governments, will achieve their respective Chesapeake Bay TMDL allocations and planning
targets. In 2010 and 2012, the seven jurisdictions finalized their Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (Bay
TMDL) Phase I and II WIPs, respectively. The goal of the Phase III WIPs, finalized in August 2019, is to outline all
necessary practices that will be in place by 2025 to fully restore the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal waters.
-7-
-------
4. CWA Section 117(e)(1)(B) Monitoring Grants
The monitoring grants are authorized under CWA Section 117(e)(1)(B) for signatory
jurisdictions. These grants support the characterization of water and habitat quality and benthic
community conditions and related parameters for the main stem Chesapeake Bay and tidal
tributaries; characterizing pollutant (including nutrients and sediment) loadings and habitat
quality and benthic community conditions to the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries from
the surrounding Chesapeake Bay watershed; assessing changes in pollutant (including nutrients
and sediment) concentrations in local streams and rivers throughout the Chesapeake Bay
watershed; and providing data analysis and interpretation support for water quality and living
resources status and trends. The work supports 2014 Agreement goal to "Reduce pollutants to
achieve the water quality necessary to support the aquatic living resources of the Bay and its
tributaries and to protect human health." EPA may award these grants non-competitively to
any signatory jurisdiction.
5. CWA Section 117(g)(2) Small Watershed Grants (SWG)
The Small Watershed Grants Program was established under CWA Sectionll7(g)(2), which
provides that grants can be awarded under Section 117(d) to local governments, federally
recognized tribes, nonprofit organizations, and individuals in the Chesapeake Bay region
working at a local level to protect and improve watersheds while building citizen-based
resource stewardship. This grant program is designed to demonstrate effective techniques and
partnership-building activities to achieve CBP objectives at the small-watershed scale. The SWG
Program encourages the sharing of innovative ideas among the many organizations wishing to
be involved in watershed protection activities. Grants may be particularly supportive of small,
underserved communities, and may advance DEIJ concerns. EPA competitively awards these
funds to an intermediary organization for the purpose of carrying out SWG awards.
-8-
-------
C. FY 2023 JURISDICTION IMPLEMENTATION GRANT FUNDING ALLOCATIONS
A description of the funding allocations for CBIG and CBRAP grants, as well as non-competitive
local government implementation funding for these grants, is below. Funding is always subject
to availability and appropriations from Congress. Additionally, EPA reserves the right to change
these allocations at its sole discretion. Occasionally, additional funding becomes available for
specific activities under these grants. These additional funds are supplemental and should not
be factored into multi-year budgets. Rather, jurisdictions must apply through a supplemental
amendment on an as-available basis. The allocations described below do not apply to these
specific activities. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 funding amounts for each jurisdiction are available
in Attachment 9.
1. Chesapeake Bay Implementation Grants (CBIG) Funding Allocation
Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania each receive 20 percent of total CBIG funding while
Delaware, the District of Columbia, New York, and West Virginia each receive 10 percent.
Beginning in FY 2014, all jurisdictions received additional CBIG funding to help support
implementation of the goals and outcomes of the 2014 Agreement. There will be no changes to
the jurisdictions' CBIG funding levels due to the CBP partnership's Phase 6 suite of modeling
tools and the CBP partnership-approved5 Phase III WIP planning targets since this grant is
intended to address all the goals and outcomes under the 2014 Agreement and not just water
quality.
2. Chesapeake Bay Regulatory and Accountability Program (CBRAP) Grants Funding
Allocation
Grantees within each watershed state and the District of Columbia receive a combination of
CBRAP base and targeted funding. EPA determines the amount of targeted funds based on the
relative effectiveness of nutrient reductions within a jurisdiction on water quality in the Bay and
how readily nutrient sources within the jurisdiction can be controlled. EPA used these decision
rules beginning in July 2010 to distribute the amount of nitrogen the Bay can receive from the
watershed and still meet water quality standards among the jurisdictions. Therefore, states that
received proportionally lower and more aggressive nitrogen targets because they have a
greater impact on water quality in the Bay received proportionally more CBRAP grant dollars.
EPA reviewed the allocation of the CBRAP funding amounts in FY 2018 and FY 2019 based on
the CBP partnership's Phase 6 Watershed Model and the CBP partnership-approved Phase III
WIP planning targets, working with the jurisdictions through the Grants Allocation Action Team
(GAAT). Similar to the previous CBRAP funding methodology, the FY 2019-2025 funding reflects
a combination of both base funding and formula funds. In addition, the formula funds are
revised and reflect the signatory jurisdictions' combined nitrogen reductions achieved through
2017 (35% of formula funds), and the remaining load reduction commitment between 2017 and
2025 (65% of formula funds).
5 PSC approved Phase III WIP planning targets at their July 9, 2018 meeting.
-9-
-------
Beginning with the FY 2013 awards, and on an annual basis thereafter, signatory jurisdictions
may request that a portion of their annual CBRAP allocation (up to 10 percent) be applied to
their CBIG award for implementation activities that support their WIPs and two-year
milestones. Beginning in FY 2018, jurisdictions may request a reallocation exceeding 10 percent
as long as a justification is provided, and the request is approved by the CBPO Deputy Director.
These reallocations must take place before the funds are awarded. Except as provided in
applicable regulations regarding revision of budget and program plans (see 2 CFR 200.308). the
funding may not be transferred from one grant to another once awarded. EPA will review each
request on a case-by-case basis. EPA will only approve requests if the jurisdiction can
demonstrate there are currently adequate resources and satisfactory progress for regulatory
and accountability commitments in the WIPs, milestones, and as called for in EPA's evaluations
and program assessments. Additionally, the shift from CBRAP to CBIG funding should not hinder
the progress or commitments in the jurisdiction's CBRAP work plan. The recipient should
submit such requests to their EPA project officer on an annual basis before submitting their
CBIG and CBRAP grant applications to EPA. Such decisions are made at the sole discretion of
EPA. All match requirements still apply to both grants. Additionally, jurisdictions should work
with their EPA project officer to determine all necessary administrative requirements.
Jurisdictions can also direct a portion of their CBRAP grant allocation to EPA's contractors for
assistance in carrying out applicable objectives of their CBRAP grant. Jurisdictions should work
with their EPA project officer if they wish to use EPA's contractors.
EPA maintains its authority to review and revise CBRAP funding allocation formulas and will
continue to consult with the jurisdictions in making revisions as appropriate. Should EPA receive
additional funds for CBRAP and CBIG in future years, these additional funds may also be used to
support local governments for Phase III WIP implementation. (See "Non-Competitive Local
Government Funding Implementation Allocation" below.)
3. Conowingo WIP Development and Implementation Funding
The total CBP grant funding allocated to support the CBP partnership's Conowingo WIP across
all seven Bay watershed jurisdictions was $325,530 for FY 2022. It is anticipated that grant
funding will continue to be allocated to support the Conowingo WIP through 2025. This funding
is intended to support the development and implementation of the Conowingo WIP and
associated two-year milestones, financing strategy, and tracking and reporting systems.
However, the jurisdictions' funding contributions toward the Conowingo WIP may increase or
decrease over time, depending on the availability of federal funds and the ability to identify
alternative funding sources. Jurisdictions have the flexibility to apply all their funding
adjustment for the Conowingo to either their CBRAP or CBIG grants and should notify their
project officer of funding adjustments with their revised grant application prior to their annual
award.
-10-
-------
4. Local Government Implementation Funding Allocation (to CBIG and/or CBRAP)
Beginning in FY 2014, EPA has provided signatory jurisdictions with increased funding for local
entities to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loads to the Chesapeake Bay, consistent
with the jurisdictions' WIPs. EPA allocates the local government implementation funding to the
Bay jurisdictions using the allocation formula for the targeted funds of the CBRAP grants. Under
this formula, jurisdictions with a greater impact on pollution reductions receive a greater share
of the funding. EPA may provide a portion of the local government implementation funding
directly to local entities through competitive RFAs. EPA may also consider increasing these
funds in future years if EPA receives additional funding for CBRAP and CBIG.
Local government implementation funding may be added to either the Bay jurisdictions' CBRAP
or CBIG award. Jurisdictions must notify their EPA project officer which grant(s) they want EPA
to add this funding prior to preparing their annual funding applications for their CBRAP and
CBIG grants.
5. Most Effective Basins Funding Allocation
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 (IIJA), signed into law on November 15, 2021, 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.
To ensure efficient use of funding, EPA has simplified its funding guidance and allocation
formula for MEB funding in FY 2023. The methodology used by EPA to determine the most
effective basins (MEB) for use of these funds, the amounts allocated per jurisdiction, and the
most effective basins in which funding will be utilized are described in Attachment 10.
EPA will award infrastructure MEB funds as a separate grant from each jurisdictions' other
implementation grants (CBIG and CBRAP). EPA will award the MEB allocation funded through
the annual appropriations to the Bay jurisdictions' CBIG grant. EPA may consider adding this
funding to a jurisdiction's CBRAP grant or may award the funds to a third party through a
Request for Applications (RFA). Jurisdictions seeking to add MEB funding to their CBRAP grant
should consult with their EPA project officer. Jurisdictions will need to incorporate the most
effective basins funding into their CBIG grant work plans as a distinct objective (see Attachment
1, Work Plan Template).
6. Supplemental Implementation Support Funding
To ensure that jurisdictional partners can continue to operate at similar levels comparative to
FY 2022, EPA will provide select jurisdictions with supplemental implementation funding
support, totaling $4 million, in FY 2023. Amounts allocated per jurisdiction can be found in
-11-
-------
Attachment 9. Funding will be awarded as part of each jurisdictions' Infrastructure MEB
award and should be incorporated as a distinct objective in the grant work plan.
EPA will use a similar methodology for implementing these funds as other MEB funds - with
the distinction that the supplemental implementation support is not limited to the list of
basins identified in Attachment 10. Similar to MEB funding, this funding should be directed
toward implementing practices designed to achieve water quality standards in the
Chesapeake Bay. To advance the partnership's commitment and focus on inclusion and
equity, 40% of these funds should be directed towards projects that provide direct benefits to
disadvantaged communities. 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.
7. Supplemental Funding for Forest Buffers. Urban Tree Canopies, and Wetlands
In FY 2023, EPA will provide funding to signatory jurisdictions for implementing actions to
restore forest buffers, enhance urban tree canopies, and/or restore wetlands. A total of at
least $1 million is available in FY 2023 and will be funded by IIJA.
Funding will be awarded specifically to jurisdictions to implement actions found in one of the
following documents:
• For forest buffers, please reference the individual jurisdictional action strategies found
here, and scrolling down under the header Chesapeake Riparian Forest Buffer 2022
Leadership Workshop.
• For urban tree canopies, please reference the CBP Tree Canopy Outcome Management
Strategy.
• For wetlands, please reference Appendix A: Participating Partnership Individual
Strategies found in the 2023 Wetlands Action Plan.
Funding will be awarded through a call for proposals, and selected proposals will be
incorporated into the jurisdictions' FY 2023 Infrastructure award. To support the
advancement of the partnership's Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Justice (DEIJ) goals,
projects that provide direct benefits to disadvantaged communities will receive priority
consideration.
-12-
-------
D. PRE-AWARD INFORMATION AND APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
1. Competition Process
EPA Order 5700.5A1. Policy for Competition of Assistance Agreements establishes policy for the
competition of assistance agreements. The authority for this order is the Federal Grant and
Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977, as amended, 31 U.S.C. 6301(3).
It is EPA policy to promote competition to the maximum extent practicable in the award of
assistance agreements under CWA Section 117(d). When assistance agreements are awarded
competitively, EPA policy requires the competitive process be fair and impartial; all applicants
be evaluated only on criteria stated in the announcement; and no applicant receive an unfair
advantage.
Grants.gov is the required mechanism for submission of applications. Requests for Applications
(RFAs) include details about eligible organizations, page limitations, funding ranges, cost-share
requirements, additional requirements, submission instructions, and any other relevant
information pertaining to the application requirements. Please follow the instructions in the
RFAs for specific submission guidance.
All EPA RFAs issued by CBPO are announced in the following manner: Posted to
www.grants.gov. posted on the EPA Region 3 website, posted on CBP partnership's website.
listed in Bay Brief newsletters, and emailed to those on CBPO's RFA email list. RFAs are posted
at various times throughout the year.
If you are interested in receiving information on future RFAs, please contact CBPO at 1-800-
YOUR-BAY (968-7229) and request to be added to the RFA distribution list(s).
2. Application Requirements
This section lists all the required documentation and information needed to provide EPA with a
complete application. It includes timeframes, contacts, address information, and recent
application process changes.
Beginning February 17, 2015, with limited exceptions, applications must be submitted through
Grants.gov. Beginning in January 2018, Grants.gov began requiring that all applicants use their
Workspace feature. Workspace allows applicants to copy and reuse forms, significantly
reducing the burden of form submission. Refer to the chart below for detailed guidance on the
appropriate application submission methods. Regardless of the manner used to apply, an
electronic courtesy copy of the submitted application should also be sent to the EPA project
officer.
-13-
-------
APPLICATION SUBMISSION METHODS
Competitive Programs
Application Type
Description
Submission Method
Competitive Full
The full proposal/application,
Grants.gov
Application
including all required forms,
submitted in response to a funding
opportunity announcement
Revisions
Any revised forms that must be
Email R3 Grant Applications@epa.gov
submitted upon
submitted by applicants selected for
with a copy to project officer and grant
competitive
funding to complete the award
specialist
selection
package
Supplemental
The amendment application
Email R3 Grant Applications@epa.gov
amendment
submitted for supplemental funding
with a copy to project officer and grant
application
to an existing competitive grant
specialist
Non-Competitive Programs
Application Type
Description
Submission Method
Non-competitive
The full application, including all
Grants.gov via EPA-CEP-02
full application for
required forms, submitted under
CEP-type6 grants
non-competitive programs that
receive annual funding.7
Revised
When changes to the forms or
Email R3 Grant Applications@epa.gov
applications
application require revised forms to
with a copy to project officer and grant
submitted pre-
be submitted.
specialist
award
Supplemental
The amendment application
Email R3 Grant Applications@epa.gov
amendment
submitted for supplemental funding
with a copy to project officer and grant
application
to an existing non-competitive grant
specialist
a. Agency Assistance Listings
Assistance listings, formerly CFDA, are the Federal assistance programs. Prior to March 2021,
CBP Assistance Listing 66.466 included (1) descriptions of both funding for technical assistance
and similar activities that EPA awards competitively to a wide range of organizations and (2)
descriptions of funding for implementation, regulatory and accountability, and monitoring
activities that EPA awards without competition and only to signatory jurisdictions of the 2014
Chesapeake Bay Agreement. To better report results and differentiate between competitive
and non-competitive funding, EPA established Assistance Listing 66.964 for jurisdiction
implementation, regulatory/accountability, and monitoring grants.
Projects awarded competitively will continue to be identified by assistance listing 66.466. In
addition, the assistance listing for CBIG, CBRAP, and monitoring awarded prior to March 2021
will remain 66.466 for the life of the grant. New implementation and monitoring grants
6 CEP - Continuing Environmental Program grant
7 Grants.gov requirement does not impact the method of the negotiation of the workplan/budget prior to
submission of the SF-424
-14-
-------
awarded after March 2021 will be identified by assistance listing 66.964, and the program code
for these grants, which was previously CB for Chesapeake Bay, will change to C2.
b. Application Deadlines and Submission Process
For new and supplemental awards, the application must be submitted for review at least 60
days before the proposed start date. However, given time needed for technical review,
recipients are encouraged to submit their applications at least 90 days in advance of anticipated
award date when possible.
An electronic version of the application, application forms, and checklists can be found online
at: www.epa.gov/grants/epa-grantee-forms. Office of Management & Budget Circulars may be
found at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/. The 0MB Uniform Grants Guidance (2 CFR Part
200) is available at: https://www.ecfr.gov/.
To download the grant application package for a non-competitive award:
1) Go to: www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/download-application-package.html
2) Type "EPA-CEP-02" into the "Funding Opportunity Number" field and click "Download
Package;"
3) Download the package associated with assistance listing 66.964;
4) Complete the Grant Application Package. Attach the forms and information identified
below; and
5) Submit your application. See the Grants.gov How to Apply for Grants website for more
information on this process.
To download the grant application package for a competitive award:
1) Goto: Search Grants I GRANTS.GOV.
2) Type in the "Opportunity Number" as it appears in the notice, e.g., EPA-R3-CBP-22-XX.
3) Follow Steps 3-5 above.
A complete application must include the following components to be considered for review.
Recipients should consult their project officer for questions regarding completing a grant
application.
1) Standard Form (SF) 424 - Application for Federal Assistance
• Assistance listings 66.466 and 66.964 are EPA programs potentially subject to
intergovernmental review: therefore, applicants must ensure they address
Q.19 on the form. (See Executive Order 12372 and RAIN-2021-G02 for details.)
• Areas affected by project is also required at Item 14. If your project will involve
more than one site, please list up to five cities and their zip codes. Watersheds
can be listed in lieu of cities (specify if using HUC8 or HUC12 level).
2) SF-424A - Budget Information for Non-Construction Programs
3) Budget detail
-15 -
-------
• Please note that all costs associated with subawards and participant support
costs, including agreements with federal agencies other than EPA, should be
placed in the "Other" budget category, with sub-awards being specifically
identified as such, whether in a sub-category or parenthetically. For assistance in
distinguishing between subawards and contracts, please see the Subawards
section or EPASubaward Policy.
• The budget detail should add specific detail about each budget category instead
of simply repeating the information found on the SF- 424A. Please see
Attachment 7 for further guidance.
• An optional budget detail template is available in Attachment 2.
4) A fully descriptive work plan, which includes the following (see Work Plan
Requirements for additional information):
• Completed Work Plan Template (see Attachment 1, a fillable version is available
from your EPA project officer).
5) Quality Management and Quality Assurance Project Plans - required if application is
accepted, if applicable (see the Quality Assurance section for more information).
6) Indirect cost rate agreement - Applicants and recipients should promptly inform EPA
if they are in the process of negotiating an indirect cost rate agreement with their
cognizant agency to allow EPA the opportunity to recommend to the cognizant
agency a special rate for assistance agreements where EPA will provide office space
and/or equipment as a form of in-kind assistance. Additionally, recipients can
voluntarily opt to charge a lower rate for a particular assistance agreement. If the
recipient chooses to charge a lower rate, they must charge the lower rate for the
"life" of the grant award.
7) Certification Regarding Lobbying
8) SF-LLL- Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (This form needs to be completed only if the
applicant has lobbying activities to disclose.)
9) EPA Form 4700-4 Pre-award Compliance Review Report (Answer all questions even if
the answer is "not applicable.")
10) EPA Key Contacts Form 5700-54
11) The Budget Detail of your Application for Federal Assistance (SF-424) must reflect
how your administrative costs will comply with the cap. In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act, the Administrative Cap Worksheet is no longer required
but can assist in calculating allowable administrative costs.
As noted earlier, Grants.gov requires all mandatory forms to be submitted. Note:
• All initial applications for competitive and non-competitive awards must be submitted
through Grants.gov using the Workspace feature.
• Applicants with limited or no internet access can apply for an exception and submit their
application through another method if approved.
-16-
-------
Once the original application is submitted through grants.gov, any revisions should be
submitted through the R3 mailbox at R3 Grant Applications@epa.gov with a copy to the
project officer and grant specialist, if known.
Any incomplete application may delay processing. In addition, the recipient can expect an
award only after all administrative and programmatic issues are resolved and the
Intergovernmental Review comment period has been met, if applicable. EPA will not approve
grant awards or amendments for additional funding until all deliverables from existing CBP
grants are completed, or the EPA project officer has approved an extension in writing.
Applicants are required to disclose certain information to EPA regarding eligibility prior to
award. As found in 2 CFR Section 180.335, the recipient must disclose when there is an
affirmative response to any of the following questions:
• Are you or any of the principals for this award presently suspended, debarred, or
otherwise ineligible?
• Have you or any of the principals for this award been convicted within the preceding
three years of any of the offenses listed in 2 CFR Section 180.800(a) or had a civil
judgment rendered against you for one of those offenses?
• Are you or any of the principals for this award presently indicted or otherwise criminally
or civilly charged by a governmental entity with commission of any of the offenses listed
in 2 CFR 180.800(a)?
• Have you had one or more public transactions terminated within the preceding three
years for cause or default?
The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA, Public Law 109-282, as
amended) established reporting requirements for prime grant recipients on the following
information: first tier subawards; first-tier subrecipient executive compensation; and prime
recipient executive compensation. This requirement is applicable to all new awards that equal
or exceed $25,000 and are awarded on or after October 1, 2010.
FFATA also requires registration in the System for Award Management (SAM) and a current
Unique Entity ID (UEI). Through a term and condition, grant recipients are required to ensure
the currency of the information they report and that all subrecipients have an assigned UEI
prior to receiving a subaward. If not previously registered, recipients must create a new
account in SAM.gov, which contains all information recipients need to get started. For more
assistance using SAM, please contact the Federal Service Desk at fsd.gov.
Another requirement of FFATA is the reporting of where the work funded by a grant will take
place (commonly referred to as "place of performance"). Beginning in 2022, recipients must
identify a maximum of five cities, towns, zip codes, or watersheds where the majority of work
is expected to occur. If multiple performance locations are identified for the project, one
location must be designated as the primary place of performance. This requirement applies to
-17-
-------
all grants and cooperative agreements. OMB requires EPA to report this data for every grant
within 30 days of award, and the information is displayed for the public at USAspending.gov.
3. Multi-year awards
Multi-year awards are defined as awards for which the project and budget periods are of the
same length; the recipient requests full funding for the entire project/budget period in the
initial application; and the recipient provides annual budget details for the outlying years.
Recipients have only to submit a full application package prior to the first year of funding.
Thereafter, the recipient is required to submit the following information annually to their EPA
project officer (see the Modifications to Award Documents section for additional information):
1) If there are no changes to the work plan or budget, recipient simply confirms that
fact and requests the approved funding via email for the coming year.
2) If there are changes to the work plan, then a revised work plan with tracked changes
must accompany the request for funding.
3) If there are budget changes then a revised budget detail for the relevant years and a
revised SF-424A must accompany the request for funding.
4. Work Plan Requirements
All applicants and recipients should use the work plan template shown in Attachment 1. This
template will be instrumental in linking work plans to EPA's Strategic Plan, 2014 Agreement
goals and outcomes, WIPs, the Bay TMDL, two-year milestones, and EPA evaluations and
assessments. Applicants and recipients should complete all areas of the work plan, and they
should label any area not applicable, when appropriate.
a. General Information
For all proposed awards competed through the Chesapeake Bay Program Office, the work plan
should be consistent with the original application submitted in response to the funding
opportunity announcement - whether competitive or non-competitive (unless the EPA project
officer and the grantee agree in writing to changes in scope).
If an assistance agreement application contains more than one objective, an introductory
paragraph should describe the overall strategy your organization has developed for completing
all the tasks.
Each objective of the work plan should be sufficiently detailed in the narrative, description, and
task section with clearly defined deliverables or outputs for the EPA project officers to
understand exactly what the grantee plans to do for each year under the agreement. All
grantees, including subrecipients, with an outreach component identified in their work plan
should provide documentation of the outreach (e.g., link of a news release and/or media
coverage) in the progress report. Further, it should be clear how the outputs relate to the tasks
within each objective.
-18-
-------
b. Introduction Section Information by Grant Program
1) 117(d) - Technical and General Assistance Grants (including INSR grants), 117(e)(1)(B)
Monitoring Grants to Signatory Jurisdictions, and 117(g)(2) Small Watershed Grants
This narrative must include background of your organization and historical perspective, if any,
of work contributing to the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay. In addition, if the application is
being submitted in connection with an RFA, then the work plan should match that in the
application submitted.
2) 117(e)(1)(A) - Chesapeake Bay Implementation Grants (CBIG) to Signatory Jurisdictions
This narrative should identify significant state and federal funding programs used to implement
the management mechanisms established in the 2014 Agreement. The narrative should include
the linkages between these funding sources and the objectives/projects funded through the
CBIG award. This narrative should also include, as appropriate, the state and federal point and
nonpoint source programs that are available to fund the jurisdiction's nutrient and sediment
reduction efforts and explain how each program is used to address watershed implementation
activities. Examples of state and federal programs include but are not limited to: Nonpoint
Source Management Program (Clean Water Act, Section 319), Water Quality Cooperative
Agreements Program (Clean Water Act, Section 104(b)(3)), Water Pollution Control Program
(Clean Water Act, Section 106), State Revolving Funds (Clean Water Act, Section 602), USDA
Environmental Quality Improvement Program (EQIP), Conservation Reserve Program (CRP);
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP); Conservation Innovation Grants (CIGs);
and Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA, Section 6217).
The narrative should also describe the objectives covered by the grant, the relationship to the
WIP and/or two-year milestones; and refer to applicable Management Strategies and two-year
Logic & Action Plans of other goals and outcomes from the 2014 Agreement.
3) 117(e)(1)(A) - Chesapeake Bay Regulatory and Accountability Program (CBRAP) Grants
This narrative should identify significant state and federal funding programs used to address
nutrient and sediment reduction-related activities within the Chesapeake Bay watershed and
the linkages between these funding sources and the objectives/projects funded through the
CBRAP grants. The narrative should also describe the objectives covered by the grant and a
description of the relationship to the WIP and/or two-year milestones.
After the introduction section, recipients will need to complete the following details for each
objective. Additional details are contained in Attachment 1, Work Plan Template.
c. Environmental Data
In December 2012, EPA issued a new policy requiring organizations that generate or use
environmental data under EPA-funded assistance agreements to submit documentation of their
competency to do so. This applies to all CBPO grants and cooperative agreements that involve
organizations generating environmental data through environmental sample collection, field
-19-
-------
measurements and/or laboratory analyses. When applicable, recipients must demonstrate
competency prior to carrying out any activities under the award involving the generation or use
of environmental data. Recipients shall maintain competency for the duration of the project
period of the applicable agreement and this will be documented during the annual reporting
process. A copy of the policy is available online or a copy may also be requested by contacting
the EPA project officer.
For new grant applications whose work plan and objectives are similar to those under
previously awarded grants, please include in the introductory paragraph a statement to the
effect that: In accordance with EPA's Competency Policy, this confirms that work being
conducted under this assistance agreement is similar in nature to work conducted under
previous assistance agreements and aligns with our approved [or pending approval] Quality
Management Plan.
d. Outputs
On January 1, 2005, EPA issued Order 5700.7al, Environmental Results Under EPA Assistance
Agreements. The Order states that an assistance agreement work plan must be negotiated to
ensure that the work plan contains well-defined outputs. The definition of output is as follows:
"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 qualitative but must be measurable
during an assistance agreement funding period.
1) Required Outputs
Progress and Final Reports
Quarterly or semi-annual and final progress reports document outputs that must be included in
each work plan and must comply with EPA Order 5700.7al. These reports must contain a
project narrative that documents the progress made in achieving the objectives of work plans
as presented in the application. A progress report template is located in Attachment 3. Each
report should contain:
• A comparison of actual accomplishments with the anticipated outputs and outcomes;
• Reason(s) why anticipated outputs were exceeded or not met;
• Problems encountered during the performance period that may have interfered with
meeting program/project objectives;
• Proposed remedies to problems encountered, if applicable;
• Information on the rate of expenditure versus progress on the project;
• If applicable, information on equipment purchased during the reporting period; and
• Any additional pertinent information, including, when appropriate, analysis of cost
overruns or high unit costs or unanticipated economics.
-20-
-------
As stated in EPA Order 5700.7al, the agency's project officer must ensure that interim
(quarterly or semi-annual) and final performance reports submitted by the recipients
adequately address progress in achieving agreed-upon outputs and outcomes. This includes,
where necessary, ensuring performance reports provide a satisfactory explanation of why
outcomes or outputs were not achieved.
Data/Information and Document Outputs
CBP has adopted a comprehensive set of guidelines and policies addressing the management
and submission of data, information, and documents, which must be submitted electronically in
a format identified in Attachments 4 and 5 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 CBP data management guidelines as documented in
Attachment 5. Please refer to Attachments 4, 5, and/or 6 for additional policies and guidelines,
as well as specific formatting information for outputs.
In select cases where electronic submission of an output is not possible, the recipient and the
project officer will determine an alternate form of submission in advance and document in the
final work plan the exact format for submission of the outputs.
Outputs that are videos or printed material meant for the public, such as brochures, fact sheets,
or publications, shall contain the following statement: "This project has been funded wholly or
in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under assistance agreement
(number) to (recipient). The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does the EPA endorse trade names or
recommend the use of commercial products mentioned in this document."
2) Other Outputs
A comprehensive schedule for submittal of progress reports, milestones, quality management
plans, quality assurance project plans, data, information, 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 recently 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.
All data and information generated through grant funding, whether EPA funds or cost share,
is considered public information and shall be made available to the public, unless there is a
grant/cooperative agreement condition that specifies otherwise.
e. Outcomes - Linkage to 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement Goals
EPA Order 5700.7al also states an assistance agreement work plan must contain, to the
maximum extent practicable, well-defined outcomes. The definition of outcome is as follows:
-21-
-------
"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.
For Chesapeake Bay Program grants, this means all recipients are required to identify in the
work plan the appropriate 2014 Agreement goal(s) and outcome(s) for each objective. Any
objective or project under the recipient's work plan that addresses the goals of the
jurisdiction's WIP or two-year milestones must be linked to outcomes under the Water Quality
Goal of the 2014 Agreement. Additionally, all CBRAP objectives must include outcomes related
to the Water Quality Goal.
Any objective or project under the recipient's work plan that addresses community outreach,
education, or citizen engagement must be linked to outcomes under the stewardship and
diversity outcomes of the 2014 Agreement.
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, whether the objective/project is on schedule, the ultimate goal
of the objective/project, and what has been completed in previous years. Recipients are
encouraged to provide progress on previous objectives/projects in a table format if possible.
Jurisdictions are not required to include information in their CBIG or CBRAP work plans on any
2014 Agreement outcomes and management strategies they are implementing with other
sources of funding.
f. Addressing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Justice (DEIJ) in Work Plans
The CBP partnership has taken deliberate steps to advance DEIJ in its work to conserve and
restore the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
• Since 2014, the CBP Diversity Workgroup has led the development and implementation
of a Management Strategy and Logic & Action Plan to achieve the diversity outcome in
the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement.
• In 2018, jurisdictions provided EPA with a status update on how diversity and/or EJ is
being addressed in their state grant guidance or related programs or policies for CBIG,
CBRAP or other Bay Program funding.
• In 2018, the CBP Diversity Workgroup began working with an independent consultant to
develop a Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Justice (DEIJ) Strategy for the entire CBP
partnership. This DEIJ Strategy, finalized in April 2020, contains recommendations
grouped into four focus areas. Recommendations were developed based on interviews
with CBP teams and leadership, a DEIJ readiness survey, two focus groups, a review of
key partnership policy documents, and input from the Diversity Workgroup.
-22-
-------
• The Chesapeake Executive Council (CEC), at its annual meeting in August 2020,
announced a DEIJ Statement for the CBP partnership and reaffirmed the Council's
commitment to embrace diversity, equity, inclusion and justice in all areas of the
Chesapeake Bay Program. The first commitment reads: "Strengthen and improve
diversity, equity, inclusion and justice in our organizational structure, leadership,
policies, strategic goals, restoration and conservation activities, workplans and program
delivery, including guidance on including DEIJ and environmental justice criteria in grant
targeting and evaluations."
• To accompany the CEC DEIJ Statement, in August 2020, the Principals' Staff Committee
announced a DEIJ Action Statement that articulates their commitment to implement the
recommendations in the CBP DEIJ Strategy consistent with applicable state and federal
law and policy. It also included actionable commitments with specific deadlines to
implement the recommendations in the DEIJ Strategy. One of their commitments was to
develop an implementation plan of the DEIJ Strategy. A DEIJ action team was formed in
the fall of 2020 and has continued to meet throughout 2021 to develop this
implementation plan.
• In October of 2020, jurisdictions and federal partners were asked at a CBP Management
Board meeting to provide information on their existing programs and efforts to advance
DEIJ under various categories (e.g., employee affinity groups, tools and processes for
targeting restoration). This information can be found at this link.
Consistent with the CBP DEIJ Statement and above efforts, it is strongly recommended that
jurisdictions and other recipients review their work plans to ensure that they are inclusive of
and working for all communities in the Bay watershed, and that they are aware of and
addressing DEIJ and environmental justice (EJ) concerns. Beginning in 2022 for new awards, a
section has been added to the Work Plan and Progress Report templates to articulate how
grant outcomes are advancing the CBP DEIJ Statement. Jurisdictions, local partners, and other
stakeholders are further encouraged to use USEPA's environmental justice screening and
mapping tool "EJSCREEN" as well as the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Justice and Equity
Dashboard, which provide desktop information that may help ensure that the diverse
communities in the Bay watershed are considered when making decisions about Bay
restoration.
CBRAP and CBIG funding can back activities supporting the Watershed Agreement goals and
outcomes, including those that relate to DEIJ and the Climate Directive.
g. Linkage to EPA's Strategic Plan
Prior to approving an assistance agreement work plan, EPA's project officer must determine
that the work plan links to EPA's FY 2022-2026 Strategic Plan. Recipients must include in their
work plan the current CBPO linkage to EPA's Strategic Plan at the time of their application.
The activities to be funded under Bay program grants are intended to further EPA's current
priorities under:
-23-
-------
• Goal 5: Ensure Clean and Safe Water for All Communities
o Objective 5.2 Protect and Restore Waterbodies and Watersheds
h. Linkage to Jurisdiction's Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) Commitments, Two-Year
Milestones and Conowingo WIP
All seven jurisdictions developed Phase III WIPs to meet partnership-approved 2025 Bay TMDL
planning targets, and implementation of those plans is currently underway. EPA released its
evaluations of the plans and continues to assess progress on an annual basis. In addition, a
separate WIP to address the nutrient and sediment loads resulting from infill of the Conowingo
Dam was developed.
Recipients of CBIG awards must complete this section if the Water Quality Goal was chosen as a
link above (see Outcomes - Linkage to 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement Goals and
Outcomes), and all CBRAP grants must complete this section to include WIP and/or two-year
milestone commitments, including any section, chapter, and/or page number of said WIP.
Recipients should mark this section "Not applicable" for grant objectives and projects that align
with other 2014 Agreement goals, outcomes, and management strategies.
All CBRAP grant objectives must be linked directly to WIP and/or two-year milestone
commitments, issues raised in EPA's evaluation of the WIPs and two-year milestones, and the
jurisdiction's programs that relate to improved water quality in the Chesapeake Bay due to the
load reductions of nutrients and sediment. Activities related to the implementation of WIPs
and/or two-year milestones must be consistent with EPA's expectations set forth in the:
• November 4, 2009 WIP Expectations letter;
• April 2, 2010 Guide for EPA's Evaluation of Phase I Watershed Implementation Plans;
• March 30. 2011 Guide for Chesapeake Bay Jurisdictions for the Development of Phase
II Watershed Implementation Plans;
• July 6. 2011 Guide for Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Two-year Milestones [In January
2020, the PSC approved an updated schedule for the two-year milestones and options
for submitting numeric milestones for the 2020-2025 timeframe.];
• June 19. 2018 Phase III WIP Expectations for the Bay jurisdictions;
• July 19, 2018 Phase III WIP planning targets issued to the Bay jurisdictions; and
• August 17, 2018 Phase III WIP Expectations for Federal Agencies.
i. Linkage to Addressing Priority Practices, Watersheds, and Strategies
In May 2010, EPA issued the Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed in fulfillment of Section 203 of Executive Order 13508. This section of the grant
guidance is consistent with the EO 13508 Strategy targeting mission, which states, "in 2011
these grant funds are being targeted...to better protect the Chesapeake Bay and its tributary
waters, including resources under the Clean Water Act."
-24-
-------
Consistent with the EO 13508 Strategy, recipients of CBRAP grants must give preference to
priority practices, watersheds, and strategies in their work plans that will result in the greatest
benefits to water quality in the Bay. Recipients of CBRAP and CBIG grants are also encouraged
to consider practices with multiple benefits targeted for implementation. Benefits not only
refer to water quality improvements but also address other 2014 Watershed Agreement
outcomes. The co-benefits that should be of the highest priority are those selected by the CBP
partnership as having a direct relationship to the Phase III WIPs, including the Conowingo WIP.
These are discussed further in the Phase III WIPs fact sheets at:
https://www.chesapeakebay.net/what/programs/watershed implementation.
CBIG is intended to implement all of the goals and outcomes of the 2014 Agreement. Recipients
of CBIG grants should also give preference to priority practices, watersheds, and strategies in
their work plans that will result in the greatest benefit to multiple outcomes under the 2014
Watershed Agreement. This focus is consistent with CBPO's ongoing efforts to use the most
accurate and appropriate science to identify priority practices, watersheds, and activities. EPA's
environmental justice screening and mapping ("EJSCREEN") tool and/or Chesapeake Bay
Environmental Justice and Equity Dashboard may also be helpful in identifying diverse
communities in priority watersheds that are often overlooked located as well as and those with
environmental justice concerns where priority practices and activities could be implemented.
Likewise, the Innovative Nutrient and Sediment Reduction grants should target regional-scale
partnerships that demonstrate:
• Innovative practices identified in the jurisdictions' WIPs, the Conowingo WIP, and/or
two-year milestones;
• Innovative practices that reflect the priorities identified in the CBP management
strategies and outcome biennial Logic & Action Plans;
• Opportunities for public-private partnerships that increase leveraged resources,
including partnerships with organizations led by and serving member(s) of the Black
Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) community;
• Opportunities that increase the pace and scale of implementation in targeted regions
and improve institutional coordination and partners among key organizations and
agencies in each region;
• Urban areas with the highest nutrient and sediment loadings to the Chesapeake Bay;
• Communities experiencing rapid growth and new development and/or underserved
communities and those with potential for environmental justice concerns; and/or
• Agricultural watersheds with the highest nutrient and sediment yielding areas to the
tidal Chesapeake Bay based on USGS SPARROW (Spatially Referenced Regression on
Watershed attributes) analyses and/or other data
Finally, to the greatest extent possible, any water quality improvement projects funded through
the Small Watershed Grants should target:
• Practices identified in the jurisdictions' WIPs, the Conowingo WIP, and/or two-year
milestones;
-25-
-------
• Practices that reflect the priorities of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement
outcome management strategies and Logic & Action Plans;
• Opportunities for public-private partnerships that increase leveraged resources;
• Areas with the highest nutrient and sediment loadings to the Chesapeake Bay; and/or
• Tools and practices that address nonpoint source pollution using EPA's Guidance for
Federal Land Management in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed as a guide for tool and
practice selection (www.epa.gov/nps/chesbay502).
Below is additional information about this sub-section of the work plan.
1) General Priority Practices and Watersheds
Priority practices are those approved, cost-effective practices that reduce or prevent the
greatest nutrient and sediment loads to the Chesapeake Bay. Grant recipients should refer to
the following resources for a representative list of proven, cost-effective practices that can
reduce nutrients/sediment:
• Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership Approved Best Management Practices (BMPs) -
provides a list of all practices approved by the partnership for credit in assessing
progress towards milestones and other goals and objectives (Chesapeake Assessment
Scenario Tool (CAST) documentation);
• Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership BMP Guide: "A Quick Reference Guide for Best
Management Practices: Nonpoint source BMPs to Reduce Nitrogen, Phosphorus and
Sediment in the Chesapeake Bay and its Local Waters" - provides summarized profiles
for the most utilized CBP-approved BMPs in the CBP partnership's Phase 6 Watershed
Model, https://www.chesapeakebay.net/documents/BMP-Guide_Full.pdf;
• EPA Guidance for Federal Land Management in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed -
provides a list of proven, cost-effective tools and practices that can reduce water
pollution from nonpoint sources. Although this document was developed for federal
lands, the same set of tools and practices are appropriate for nonfederal land managers
to restore and protect the Chesapeake Bay;
• EPA report titled The Next Generation of Tools and Actions to Restore Water Quality in
the Chesapeake Bay - provides a list of priority practices to address nutrient loads to the
Chesapeake Bay;
• Chesapeake Bay Watershed Data Dashboard - consolidates and provides accessibility to
a large amount of scientific and technical information at both the state and local levels
to inform restoration efforts; and
• Water Resource Registry used in conjunction with EPA's Recovery Potential Screening
Tool at: https://watershedresourcesregistry.org/
While grant recipients should consider all these resources, EPA acknowledges grant recipients
may include other partnership-approved BMPs in their work plan with a justification that
includes the following information:
• The priority practices that will be implemented with the grant funds;
-26-
-------
• A short justification as to why each practice is a priority for the location in which it is to
be implemented;
• A short description of the nutrient and sediment reductions associated with the
practice; and
• A brief description of the strategies utilized to ensure effective implementation of the
practice.
CBRAP grants can only support implementation of practices the CBP partnership has
determined result in nutrient and/or sediment reductions. However, CBIG grants can support
implementation of practices the CBP partnership has determined result in nutrient and/or
sediment reductions, as well as contribute to the desired habitat and/or living resource
restoration objectives. All projects must be consistent with the goals and outcomes of the 2014
Agreement. Jurisdictions are encouraged to include priority practices associated with federal,
state, and/or local regulatory and related compliance assurance programs in their CBRAP work
plan content.
Grant recipients should strongly consider whether their work addresses DEIJ concerns. This
includes ensuring projects are undertaken in communities with environmental justice
concerns, and historically disadvantaged communities to address past and existing disparities.
In the work to meaningfully engage with such communities, jurisdictions should consider the
strategies articulated in the Diversity Outcome Management Strategy, the recommendations in
the CBP DEIJ Strategy and its implementation plan, and the commitments made by the
Executive Council and Principals' Staff Committee in their respective 2020 DEIJ Statements (see
Addressing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Justice (DEIJ) in Work Plans).
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) issued new results on the sources of sediment within the
Chesapeake Bay that also could be considered in helping to select areas on which to focus
water-quality improvements. The new information, based on the Chesapeake Bay sediment
SPARROW model, can be accessed online. The user can find information showing areas of high
sediment loads to local streams and to the Bay and its tidal tributaries. Results of new
SPARROW models for nitrogen and phosphorus can be found at:
water.usgs.gov/nawqa/sparrow.
2) Priority Urban Watersheds
In urban watersheds, grant recipients may give preference to watersheds in areas of
accelerated population and impervious cover growth as well as areas requiring extensive
retrofits to address urban stormwater. These priority areas can be identified using local land
use/land cover data as well as recent land change data developed by USGS. Jurisdictions should
rely on recent water quality monitoring and modeling data being used for development of their
WIPs and should also consider delivered loads of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment described
in the online USGS SPARROW website.
-27-
-------
Changing hydrologic conditions due to climate change pose risks to stormwater infrastructure
and public safety. To date, state and local governments have used a series of precipitation
volume-based engineering design criteria to manage risks to public health as well as the
performance of their stormwater infrastructure. However, the current practice of designing
infrastructure using intensity-duration-frequency (IDF) curves based on historic precipitation
analysis are likely to underestimate future precipitation, leading to a loss of stormwater BMP
efficiency and increased risk of infrastructure failure.
While not a requirement, jurisdictions are encouraged to consider stormwater design using
sizing criteria that provides an acceptable level of risk under future climate conditions. There
are multiple approaches to resilient sizing criteria that may include the use of projected IDF
curves, adding a "factor of safety" to historic precipitation data, or establishing over-
management criterion for quantity and rate control. Future projected IDF curves tailored for
each county in the entire Chesapeake Bay Watershed and Virginia and an accompanying web-
based tool are now available to assist jurisdictions with their resilient design considerations. If
stormwater management BMPs funded under CBIG fail to apply sizing criteria that provides
an acceptable level of risk under future climate conditions, please explain why the future
projected IDF curves were not used.
Jurisdictions may also utilize EPA's environmental justice screening and mapping ("EJSCREEN")
tool and the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Justice and Equity Dashboard to assist them in
identifying watersheds in communities that may have environmental justice concerns. These
tools provide desktop information that may help ensure that the diverse communities in the
Bay watershed are considered for Bay restoration funding.
3) Priority Approaches and Practices for Stormwater
Approaches to stormwater management have changed notably in the past few years from
extended detention approaches (big basins) to onsite retention. EPA encourages grant
recipients to consider the following sources of information when selecting their approaches and
practices for addressing stormwater nutrient and sediment loads:
• National Research Council - Urban Stormwater Management, 2008;
• EPA technical documents - Guidance for Federal Land Management in the Chesapeake
Bay Watershed. Chapter 3 Urban and Suburban, 2010;
• EISA technical guidance -Technical Guidance on Implementing the Stormwater Runoff
Requirements for Federal Projects under Section 438 of the Energy Independence and
Security Act. 2009;
• EPA green infrastructure policy memos;
• EPA Green Streets / G3 Program;
• EPA Green Infrastructure website;
• Green Infrastructure Modeling Toolkit;
• Community Solutions for Stormwater Management;
• Green Infrastructure Performance;
-28-
-------
• EPA Region 3 July 2010 MS4 guidance - Urban Stormwater Approach for the Mid-
Atlantic Region and the Chesapeake Bay Watershed;
• Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership Approved BMPs;
• Chesapeake Stormwater Network BMP resources;
• Municipal Online Stormwater Training (MOST) Center;
• National Stormwater Calculator; and
• State Stormwater BMP and Erosion and Sediment Control Manuals.
4) Priority Practices for Onsite Treatment Systems
EPA's Model Program for Onsite Systems Management in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed is
available to help Bay jurisdictions more effectively prevent nutrients from entering the Bay
from onsite or septic systems. This model program provides state-of-the-art treatment,
management, and operational recommendations to jurisdictions and their local communities
interested in reducing onsite system nitrogen impacts. EPA encourages grant recipients to
consider the information provided in this document when selecting their approaches and
technologies for addressing onsite treatment system nutrient loads. In addition, on April 16,
2015, the states of Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia signed a
Memorandum of Cooperation to share data developed to document the performance of
advanced onsite pretreatment units for nitrogen reduction and, therefore, to simplify and
expedite the approval processes for these technologies in each individual state, as well as
reduce costs to residents and manufacturers.
5) Priority Agriculturgl Wgtersheds
Priority agricultural watersheds have the greatest influence on Chesapeake Bay water quality
and include watersheds in greatest need of restoration where nutrient/sediment loads to the
Bay are greatest, have the highest "delivery factors" for loads reaching the Bay, and/or the
watershed is having a negative impact on water quality. EPA encourages grant recipients to
consider the CBP partnership's priority agricultural watersheds when selecting agricultural
locations in need of restoration. Recipients should refer to the web mapping application and
associated story map for more information.
6) Priority Strgtegies for Trgding gnd Offset Progrgms
Developing environmental markets, particularly for nutrient and sediment credit trading, can be
an important supporting strategy for achieving water quality goals for the Chesapeake Bay.
In early 2012, EPA completed a comprehensive assessment of the Bay jurisdictions' trading and
offset programs to determine whether they meet the criteria established in Section 10 and
Appendix S of the Bay TMDL. These assessments identified a number of jurisdiction-specific and
cross-jurisdictional common concerns. EPA requested that jurisdictions prepare action plans by
2013 to address these areas. EPA updated its assessments and sent them to the jurisdictions in
November 2016. Information regarding these assessments is posted to EPA's Trading and Offset
website.
-29-
-------
On February 6, 2019, EPA issued an updated Water Quality Trading Policy Memo to promote
market-based mechanisms for improving water quality. This policy update includes additional
flexibilities that state and local policymakers may consider incorporating into trading and other
market-based programs to promote water quality improvements. They may also update or
improve current policies and regulations related to nutrient accounting and trading per the
2019 memo. Nutrient and sediment credit trading has the potential to reduce the costs of
achieving the nutrient and sediment load reductions expected under the Bay TMDL and to
generate revenue streams for some sectors. EPA supports trading programs that are consistent
with the Clean Water Act and the Bay TMDL - specifically, programs in which appropriate
baselines are used, the practices are verified, trading partners are accountable, and the process
is open to all interested parties. A number of Bay jurisdictions have already implemented water
quality trading programs.
Grant recipients may use CBRAP funds to support the development and implementation of
trading and offset programs as long as these programs are established and implemented in a
manner consistent with the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, the Clean Water Act, and its applicable
regulations. EPA expects grant recipients to use their CBRAP funds to continue to develop and
implement accountability and tracking systems for the appropriate sectors. EPA expects the
continued development and maintenance of these systems to be identified as a separate
objective or task in CBRAP work plans (see Additional Work Plan Content Specific to CBRAP
Grants).
Grant recipients using CBRAP grants to fund development and implementation of trading and
offset programs need to consider the following:
• Authority,
• Baseline for credit generators,
• Minimum controls required for credit purchasers,
• Eligibility,
• Credit calculation and verification,
• Safeguards,
• Certification and enforceability,
• Accountability and tracking,
• Nutrient-impaired segments,
• Credit banking,
• Local water quality impacts,
• Accounting for credit uncertainty,
• Management of new nutrient and sediment loads, and
• Timing of credit generation and use.
For more details, grant recipients should refer to Appendix S of the Bay TMDL. EPA, in
coordination with the CBP partnership's Trading and Offsets Workgroup (TOWG), developed a
comprehensive work plan.
-30-
-------
7) Guidance on the Use of this Sub-section for Individual Grant Programs
While the resources identified in this sub-section should be considered by recipients of CBIG
and CBRAP grants, EPA acknowledges the jurisdictions may include other priority watersheds in
their work plan with appropriate justification that includes the following information:
• The priority watersheds that will be addressed;
• A short justification as to why each watershed is considered a priority;
• The amount of grant funding to be allocated to each;
• The work to be accomplished in each and
• A brief description of the strategies being undertaken.
j. Additional Work Plan Requirements
Summary of Staff Funded. Under each objective in their work plan, all recipients should include
a summary of staff funded with federal dollars or recipient cost-share. At a minimum, this
should include the personnel costs and number of staff for the objective(s).
Conferences/workshops/meetings. Conferences may be funded with an assistance agreement if
the principal purpose is not for the direct benefit of the government (see Best Practices Guide
for Conferences Funded with an Assistance Agreement). If a work plan includes conferences,
workshops, or meetings that the recipient will conduct, the recipient must address the
following questions in the narrative summary portion of the work plan. Note that the
requirement to address these questions in the EPA workplan applies only to conferences and
workshops being conducted by the direct recipient of EPA funding (prime), not its
subrecipients and subcontractors. When conferences and workshops are conducted by
subrecipients, the prime should in turn ask these questions of their subrecipients to ensure
conference activities comply with federal and EPA requirements.
• Who is initiating the conference, workshop, or meeting?
• How is the conference, workshop, or meeting being advertised?
• Whose logo will be on the agenda and conference, workshop, and meeting materials?
a) Supporting a Conference Sponsored by a Nonfederal Entity: Use of the EPA's
logo in connection with promotion or sale of non-government produced goods
or services is forbidden. Promotional material for conferences conducted under
grants and cooperative agreements may acknowledge the conference receives
financial support from the agency under an assistance agreement, but they
cannot use the logo on a conference brochure in a manner that implies the
conference is being conducted by EPA. These conferences should be described as
the recipient's event, not EPA's.
b) Jointly sponsored Conferences: The EPA's official logo may be used on
promotional and conference materials for conferences EPA jointly sponsors with
outside groups. The co-sponsor's logo should also be used on promotional and
-31-
-------
conference materials and should be displayed at least as prominently as the
EPA's.
• What is the expected percentage distribution of the persons attending the conference,
workshop, or meeting (i.e., percent of federal, state, local, or public participants)?
• Is the recipient going to produce a record of the proceedings or analysis/analyses and
disseminate this information to the state, local, or scientific community?
• Does the recipient anticipate program income being generated from the conference,
workshop, or meeting, including registration fees?
Light refreshments. In addition, if the work plan and/or budget detail includes activities during
which light refreshments and/or meals will be provided, recipients should consult the Guidance
on Selected Items of Costs for Recipients. Additional information will be necessary prior to
approving the work plan or incurring expenses for such costs. The General Services
Administration has defined light refreshments to include but not be limited to coffee, tea, milk,
juice, soft drinks, donuts, bagels, fruit, pretzels, cookies, chips, and/or muffins.
If a work plan and/or budget detail includes activities during which light refreshments and/or
meals will be provided, the recipient must address the following in the narrative summary
portion of the work plan:
• The estimated cost of the event associated with the light refreshments and/or meals.
• An adequate description of the event.
• A statement regarding whether those attending the event will receive a per diem
financed with grant funds.
• A statement justifying why the provision of light refreshments and/or meals is necessary
to achieve the objectives of the assistance agreement.
• A statement justifying why the provision of light refreshments and/or meals is necessary
to achieve the objectives of the event.
• Information on the availability of the light refreshments and/or meals (i.e., before,
during, or after the event).
k. Work Plan Content Specific to CBRAP Grants
Activities eligible for funding under the CBRAP grants differ from those funded by CBIG. CBRAP
grants fund activities related to the water quality goal of the 2014 Agreement, whereas CBIG
can fund all goals of the 2014 Agreement. Although there is some overlap among the eligible
uses of these grants, recipients cannot fund the same activity or task in both.
CBRAP funds can be used to address issues identified by EPA in its program assessments and
WIP and milestone evaluations. Recipients should work with EPA to address all issues raised
during relevant EPA program assessments and within their CBRAP work plans. These
assessments include, but are not limited to, agricultural, stormwater, offset and trading, and
BMP verification program assessments.
-32-
-------
EPA contractor (in-kind) assistance may be available to Bay jurisdictions to support multi-
jurisdictional work on common templates or systems or for addressing jurisdiction-specific
needs (see FY 2023 Grant Funding Allocations).
Each jurisdiction should work with their EPA project officer to determine what they need to
include in their work plan related to tracking and accountability. Each jurisdiction continues to
maintain and enhance an operational tracking and accountability system consistent with
Appendix S of the Chesapeake BayTMDL and is expected to include the following as a separate
objective in its CBRAP work plan:
Continue making improvements to existing tracking and accountability systems based on
the CBP partnership's decision to use conditions forecasted through 2025 in the Phase III
WIPs and two-year milestones. These growth projections will be updated on a two-year
basis, to coincide with the two-year milestone submission schedule. Any refinements or
updates to existing tracking and accountability systems that may be needed should be
completed by the end of each milestone period as appropriate or as needed.
The following should also be included in this CBRAP work plan objective or task:
Consistent with Common Element 8 on pages 5-6 of Appendix S of the Chesapeake Bay
TMDL. the accountability and tracking system(s) will be able to track the offsetting of new
or increased loadings of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment to the Chesapeake Bay
watershed. Such systems are expected to focus on performance outcomes while providing
maximum transparency, operational efficiency, and accessibility to all interested parties.
Such system(s) should address the following:
1) An appropriate offset baseline is used to generate credits.
2) The offset is quantified and verified according to standards established by the
jurisdiction.
3) The offset or credit is sold to no more than one purchaser at a time.
4) The nutrient delivery equivalency of the offset generated, and the offset consumed
both in terms of the equivalency of pollutants and appropriate attenuation.
5) The locations(s) of the offset, including where the offset or credit is generated.
6) Authentication of ownership.
7) The NPDES permit number or other identification of the purchaser of the offset or
credit.
8) Documentation of agreements between parties to the offset transaction.
9) Whether sufficient offsets will be acquired over the period of the new or increased
loading.
10) Compliance status of NPDES parties.
11) The results of monitoring and verification for each offset.
12) Time frames for regular review and evaluation of the offset program.
-33-
-------
The Bay jurisdictions' accountability and tracking systems should have the ability to
differentiate BMPs according to their benefits for meeting WIP commitments or for
offset/trading. When the jurisdictions report their implemented BMPs for the annual progress
review, EPA expects that they will identify which BMPs, and any other projects and practices,
were used to generate nutrient credits. This information should be reported through the
National Environmental Information Exchange Network (NEIEN). Alternatively, a jurisdiction
may demonstrate through the design of the program and the tracking of credits on its registry
that new or increased loads are being offset and that both the BMPs in an offset or trading
program and the associated nutrient reductions are accurately accounted for and publicly
available. As part of the annual progress submissions, the CBP partnership calculates the
pounds of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment reduction from those credit-generating projects
and practices at the state-basin scale.
EPA also expects the jurisdictions to sum the load reductions (i.e., pounds) used in trades and
offsets by major river basin in each year for each of the three pollutants - nitrogen,
phosphorus, and sediment. This should not require additional calculations, just summing
already quantified pounds of credits used as reported in the state's registry/tracking system.
This information will then be used as feedback as part of the annual progress submissions.
Jurisdictions should report BMPs in this manner with their progress input deck submissions.
Finally, BMP data that is submitted by federal agencies must be entered by the jurisdictions into
NEIEN and identified as federal with the appropriate agency code. Complete entry of federal
facility BMP data (by federal agency) is critical to allow EPA to assess progress in meeting
federal facility planning goals.
In September 2014, the CBP partnership's Principals' Staff Committee approved and adopted
the Chesapeake Bay Basinwide BMP Verification Framework.8 This framework commits the
partners to a set of five BMP verification principles and comprehensive sets of BMP
verification guidance. Based on the schedule agreed to by the CBP partnership, all seven
jurisdictions developed and submitted, and EPA reviewed and approved, their enhanced BMP
tracking, verification, and reporting program quality assurance plans. These programs were
considered fully consistent with and supportive of the CBP partnership's adopted BMP
verification principles. EPA will review updates to these verification QAPPs based on each
jurisdiction's annual progress submissions. Starting with the 2018 progress submission, BMPs
reported through NEIEN by jurisdictions that do not have and/or do not meet approved
verification protocols may not be counted. Protocols for EPA's annual verification assessment
of reported BMPs and wastewater data are available online. CBRAP grant funding can be used
directly by the jurisdictions to support the development, enhancement, or expansion of their
BMP verification programs and their continued operation.
1) Examples of eligible grant activities and tasks include:
8 Chesapeake Bay Program, 2014. Strengthening Verification of Best Management Practices Implemented in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed: A Basinwide Framework. Annapolis, Maryland.
-34-
-------
a. Development and Implementation of WIPs and Two-Year Milestones
• Gathering, analysis, and quality assurance of data related to the sources and transport
of nutrient and sediment loads to the Bay; the impact of future growth, changing land
uses, and conservation strategies on water quality; and/or management of nutrient and
sediment loads;
• Development of strategies to reduce nutrient and sediment loads delivered to the Bay;
• Implementation of the Phase III WIPs and drafting and implementation of two-year
milestone commitments;
• Development and tracking of local9 and federal facilities planning goals; and/or
• Facilitation of stakeholder input into implementation of WIPs and development and
implementation of two-year milestones.
b. Improved or Expanded Regulation of Sources of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Sediment
Delivered to the Bay Consistent with WIPs and/or Two-Year Milestones for Water Quality
• Development of new authorities, rules, or regulations to reduce nutrient and sediment
loads delivered to the Bay through enforceable or otherwise binding commitments;
• Development or revision of state technical standards;
• Development of more stringent and clearly enforceable permits;
• Development of technical information to ensure permits contain necessary information
to ensure consistency with TMDL wasteload allocations;
• Technical and/or compliance assistance for permit reviews;
• Technical and/or compliance assistance for landowners;
• Additional staff to develop permits and ensure consistency with water quality needs,
including TMDL wasteload allocations;
• Designation for regulation of additional areas or operations as regulated under the
Clean Water Act; and/or
• Development or implementation of trading programs to facilitate compliance with
water quality goals.
c. Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Consistent with WIPs and/or Two-Year Milestones
for Water Quality
• Develop and implement methods to assess compliance with existing or new
regulations, such as those relating to municipal separate storm sewers (MS4s),
construction of storm water and animal feeding operations, and wastewater treatment
plants, and pursue appropriate enforcement responses when violations are identified,
with particular emphasis on permittees that are in Significant Noncompliance (SNC);
• Develop and implement methods to target and deliver enforcement follow-through or
compliance assistance;
9 Final Recommendations of the Local Planning Goals Task Force.
-35-
-------
• Develop and implement transparent methods to track and publicly communicate
compliance and enforcement efforts, including identifying serious noncompliance,
compliance, and enforcement efforts to address noncompliance and resulting
environmental benefits achieved;
• Technical compliance assistance to support enforcement and/or compliance assurance
efforts;
• Training and outreach to local entities on nutrient and sediment reduction practices for
MS4s;
• Increased staff resources for compliance monitoring, enforcement follow-up, reviews,
reporting, inspections, investigations, audits, corrective actions, and assistance visits;
• Workshops for regulatory staff or permittees on new permit conditions, standards, or
requirements; and/or
• Effectiveness monitoring for practices or management actions associated with permit
conditions or contracts.
d. Improved Tracking, Reporting, Verification, and Accountability Consistent with WIPs and/or
Two-year Milestones for Water Quality
• Development and implementation of National Environmental Information Exchange
Network (NEIEN) BMP data flows to report practices to the Chesapeake Bay Program;
• Consistent with the November 4, 2009, December 29, 2009, and June 19, 2018 federal
expectations letters as well as the Guide for EPA's Evaluation of Phase I Watershed
Implementation Plans issued April 2, 2010, as amended or clarified by subsequent
EPA and CBP partnership communications, including the CBP partnership's October
2014 Strengthening Verification of Best Management Practices Implemented in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed: A Basinwide Framework:
• Development and enhancement of verification programs and policies (e.g., procedures
for verifying agricultural conservation practices - both cost-shared and non-cost shared
- are properly designed, installed, and maintained)
• Development and implementation of protocols and staff resources to report data that
meet EPA expectations for tracking and verification into NEIEN and CAST;
• Development and implementation of protocols, procedures and staff resources to
report BMP data from federal facilities and federal lands as jurisdictions work towards
their established pollutant load reduction targets and achievement of their two-year
milestones, consistent with the CBP partnership's June 2015 Protocol for Setting
Targets, Planning BMPs and Reporting Progress for Federal Facilities and Lands and
EPA's August 16, 2018 Expectations for Federal Lands and Facilities in Supporting
Chesgpegke Bgy Wgtershed Jurisdictions' Phgse III Wgtershed Implementgtion Plgns;
• Development and/or improvement of procedures for verifying practices that were
designed, implemented, and maintained properly, including as specified in permit or
contract conditions;
• Development and implementation of protocols, procedures and staff resources to
improve NPDES data quality and data transfers to improve completeness and accuracy
of compliance data in the Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS); and
-36-
-------
• Securing any necessary data-sharing agreements with universities, industry
associations, or other entities consistent with the CBP partnership's approved
approaches, protocols, and requirements.
e. Improved Monitoring and Assessment of Compliance with Regulatory Loading Limits and
Water Quality Standards Regulations
• Development and implementation of monitoring, assessment and/or data analysis
techniques for determining and reporting progress toward achievement of Bay TMDL
and WIP-based allocations; and/or
• Development and implementation of monitoring and assessment techniques for
making regulatory decisions (consistent with state water quality standards) on listing
and delisting Chesapeake Bay and tidal tributary and embayment waters.
Activities and tasks not listed above but in support of the development and/or implementation
of the jurisdictions' WIPs and two-year milestones for water quality, or in response to EPA's
evaluation of these documents or to EPA assessments of jurisdictions' programs, are also
eligible for CBRAP grants. Activities and tasks should be targeted based on EPA evaluations of
WIPs, milestones, trading offsets, and other program assessments. Jurisdictions should also give
priority to addressing state regulatory programmatic deficiencies identified in EPA's State
Review Framework, Permit Quality Review, Trading and Offset Program Assessments,
Stormwater Assessments, Agricultural Assessments, and the WIP and Milestones Evaluations
that can be an impediment in achieving their WIP and milestone commitments and goals.
The following related activities are not eligible under CBRAP:
• Cost-sharing implementation of voluntary controls or best management practices
identified in the jurisdictions' WIPs and two-year milestones;
• Paying penalties and fines; and
• Costs resulting from non-Federal entity violations of, alleged violations of, or failure to
comply with, Federal state, tribal, local or foreign laws and regulations are unallowable,
except when incurred as a result of compliance with specific provisions of the federal
award, or with prior written approval of the Federal awarding agency (in accordance
with 2 CFR 200.441).
2) Examples of possible outputs within each of the above five categories of eligible grant
activities and tasks include but are not limited to:
a. Development and Implementation of TMDL WIPs and Two-Year Milestones
• Submission of draft and final WIPs by relevant deadlines;
• Submission of draft and final two-year milestones by relevant deadlines;
• Number of stakeholder or public meetings; and/or
• Number of stakeholder groups engaged.
-37-
-------
b. Improved or Expanded Regulation of Sources of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and/or Sediment
Delivered to the Bay
• Number of new authorities, rules, or regulations adopted;
• Number of new authorities, rules, or regulations adopted pertaining to trading and
offsets;
• Pounds of nitrogen and phosphorus and tons of sediment loads now subject to new,
expanded, or improved regulatory controls;
• Nitrogen, phosphorus, and/or sediment load reductions due to improved or expanded
regulations;
• Number of operations subject to new, expanded, or improved regulatory controls;
• Acreage of area subject to new, expanded, or improved regulatory controls;
• Percent of permits reviewed;
• Percent of permits that contain appropriate conditions, controls, limits and/or
consistency with local water quality needs, including TMDL wasteload allocations;
• Number of permits issued;
• Number of new or improved management practices or procedures implemented;
and/or
• Development of adequate accountability and tracking systems for tracking trading and
offsets.
c. Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
• Percent of permits in compliance with permit conditions;
• Percent of permits in Significant Noncompliance (SNC);
• Number of inspections of NPDES permittees in SNC;
• For those permits where serious noncompliance is identified (including instances where
an NPDES permit was not applied for but should have been), indicate estimated
nitrogen, phosphorus, and/or sediment loads associated with the noncompliance and
the type of action taken to address the noncompliance;
• Percent of permits inspected;
• Percent of permits inspected for compliance assurance/enforcement due to impact on
Bay water quality within a target area;
• Percent of permittees in compliance with permit conditions in an area targeted for
compliance assurance/enforcement due to impact on water quality in the Bay;
• Percent of targeted areas where all sources potentially contributing to the impairment
have been inspected;
• Number of workshops for regulatory staff and/or permittees;
• Percent of regulatory staff and/or permittees that attend permitting workshops;
• Percent of sites with available monitoring;
• Number of enforcement actions (with locations, and types of violations addressed);
• Number of corrective actions;
• Percent of noncompliant permittees brought into compliance;
-38-
-------
• Nitrogen, phosphorus, and/or sediment load reductions that will be required due to
injunctive relief;
• Dollars spent on installing and operating required remedies;
• Penalties and/or supplemental environmental projects;
• Number of new or improved management practices or procedures implemented;
• Number of new compliance assistance outreach and educational materials available
• Audience reached by new compliance assistance outreach and educational materials;
and/or
• Number of new or improved management practices resulting from compliance
assistance.
Upon request, EPA can provide methodologies and tools for estimating nitrogen, phosphorus,
and/or sediment load reductions from BMPs and/or corrective actions associated with
improved or expanded regulatory, enforcement, and compliance assurance actions.
d. Improved Tracking, Verification, and Accountability
• Improved pollutant identification;
• Percent of sites with effectiveness monitoring;
• Percent of state tracking and verification systems compatible with Chesapeake Bay
Program Office tools (NEIEN and CAST) and consistent with the November 4, 2009,
December 29, 2009, and June 19, 2018 expectations, as well as the Guide for EPA's
Evaluation of Phase I Watershed Implementation Plans issued April 2, 2010 - as
amended or clarified by subsequent CBP partnership communications, including the
CBP partnership's October 2014 Strengthening Verification of Best Management
Prgctices Implemented in the Chesgpegke Bgy Wgtershed: A Bgsinwide Frgmework;
• Number of state tracking and verification systems compatible with Chesapeake Bay
Program Office tools (NEIEN and CAST) and consistent with the November 4, 2009,
December 29, 2009, and June 19, 2018 expectations, as well as the Guide for EPA's
Evglugtion of Phgse I Wgtershed Implementgtion Plgns issued April 2, 2010 - as
amended or clarified by subsequent CBP partnership communications, including the
CBP partnership's October 2014 Strengthening Verificgtion of Best Mgnggement
Prgctices Implemented in the Chesgpegke Bgy Wgtershed: A Bgsinwide Frgmework. For
example, verification systems for ensuring agricultural conservation practices (both
cost-shared and non-cost shared) are properly designed, installed and maintained);
• Percent and number of sites, sources, and/or permittees captured by tracking and
verification systems compatible with CBPO systems;
• Percent and units of BMPs verified under annual progress submissions to the
Chesapeake Bay Program Office, in accordance with each jurisdiction's EPA-approved
verification program and plan; and/or
• Submission of state data for each of the 12 outcome measures.
e. Improved Monitoring and Assessment of Compliance with Regulatory Loading Limits and
Water Quality Standards Regulations
-39-
-------
• Number of watersheds assessed for compliance with Bay TMDL/WIP allocations; and/or
• Number of Chesapeake Bay tidal segments assessed for attainment of Chesapeake Bay
water quality standards.
EPA may work with grant recipients to select appropriate programmatic and environmental
outputs related to WIPs, regulatory programs, enforcement, compliance assurance, and
accountability.
I. Additional Work Plan Content Specific to Local Government Implementation Funding
Since FY 2014, EPA has been committed to providing increased funding for local governments
to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment loads to the Chesapeake Bay, consistent with
the jurisdictions' WIPs. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014 provided additional state
funding for CBPO, and EPA provided $5 million for this commitment. EPA is hopeful funding for
local government implementation will continue in future years. Jurisdictions have the option of
having EPA add their share of local government implementation funding to their CBRAP and/or
CBIG.
Local government implementation funding is intended for use by local entities. For purposes of
this guidance, "local entity" may include counties, municipalities, cities, towns, townships, or
federally recognized tribes, as well as local public authorities or districts (including conservation
districts or regional planning districts), organizations representing local governments, or
watershed organizations that support local government implementation. If EPA awards a Bay
jurisdiction local government implementation funding, they are expected to provide this
funding through contracts or subawards to local entities based on the local entities' ability to
reduce nutrient and sediment loads through key sectors, such as land development and
agriculture. Jurisdictions must make subrecipient and contractor determinations in accordance
with 2 CFR 200.330. If a jurisdiction plans to make subawards, then they must follow the
requirements of 2 CFR 200.331.10 Jurisdictions can provide this funding to a different state
agency that would then provide the funding to local entities through subawards or contracts.
EPA can also provide this funding directly to entities through competitive RFAs (see
Competition Process).
Local government implementation funding added to CBRAP and CBIG awards needs to be
incorporated in these grants' work plans. Jurisdictions should include this funding as a new
objective(s) in the work plan for the grant vehicle they choose to be funded.
This part of the grant guidance describes the information EPA expects jurisdictions to include in
the local government implementation objective of their work plan, as well as the expected uses
of these funds. Information about necessary work plan content for local government funding
awarded directly to local entities by EPA through a competitive RFA will be contained in the
specific RFA.
10 This only applies to CBIG and CBRAP awards that receive any funding on or after December 26, 2014.
-40-
-------
The Narrative Summary of Outputs for this objective should briefly describe the local
government implementation work that will be accomplished with this funding and how the
funding will be used in a timely manner. Jurisdictions should also describe how they will
distribute this funding to local entities. This includes describing what criteria or mechanisms
they will use to select local entities for funding through subgrants or contracts and whether
they will provide these funds to another state agency to distribute to local entities. If
jurisdictions know the local entities they will fund when they are preparing this work plan
objective, then they should include them under the new work plan objective and explain why
they were chosen. Where appropriate, jurisdictions should describe how funds will address
needs in underserved communities, improving protections and/or accruing environmental
benefits to these communities.
EPA expects work plans to include well-defined and measurable outputs related to meeting WIP
commitments and, where applicable, to addressing issues raised by EPA in its evaluations of the
jurisdictions' two-year milestones. The work plan should include near-term outputs for local
government implementation activities that produce nutrient and sediment reduction. However,
some activities jurisdictions fund may not lead to quantifiable pounds of nutrients or sediment
reduced, such as those related to development of local ordinances. For these activities,
jurisdictions should still include outputs and deliverables that are quantifiable while describing
the activity's connection to nutrient and sediment reduction. Other areas of the local
government implementation objective should follow the guidance in the Work Plan
Requirements section and Attachment 1, Work Plan Template.
The local government implementation activities will be in support of the Bay jurisdictions' WIPs.
For FY 2023, local entities may use these funds to help track local planning goals and/or to
support their participation in Phase III WIP implementation.
Jurisdictions should consider funding activities that address the issues raised by EPA in its
evaluations of the jurisdictions' WIPs and milestones if local government implementation
activities can address one or more of the issues. Jurisdictions should give priority to funding
those activities that will address missed water quality milestones, accelerate the pace for
meeting WIP commitments, and/or have the greatest impact on reducing nutrient and
sediment loads. In deciding which local activities to fund, jurisdictions should also consider the
timeliness and cost-effectiveness of the activities in contributing to nutrient and sediment
reduction.
As such, the allowable uses of the local government implementation funding are a subset of the
eligible uses of the CBRAP and CBIG awards that address EPA's evaluations of jurisdictions' WIPs
and milestones. Jurisdictions should choose to which grant vehicle to apply their local
government implementation funds based on the types of activities they plan to fund. CBIG
should be used if they plan to fund local entities for direct implementation of nutrient and
sediment reduction. Examples of direct implementation include the expansion of BMP
implementation as well as improvements to wastewater treatment and stormwater
-41-
-------
management, including green infrastructure projects. CBRAP should be used if they plan to
distribute their funding to local entities to expand local entities' regulatory and accountability
capabilities related to nutrient and sediment loads. This funding should consider transferability
of these tools to other local jurisdictions. Examples of CBRAP-eligible activities and related
outputs by local entities can be found in this guidance under the Work Plan Content Specific to
CBRAP Grants section. These activities include improving the regulation of sources of nutrients
and sediment as well as expanding capacity to enforce and ensure compliance. With the
exception of training requested by local entities, jurisdictions that need to improve training and
outreach to local entities on nutrient and sediment reduction practices should use their other
CBRAP funding.
Additional examples of possible uses of this funding by local entities for reducing nutrient and
sediment loads that would also support WIP implementation are below:
• Local implementation of priority, structural agricultural, urban/suburban, and/or
resource BMPs identified in the jurisdictions' WIPs and two-year milestones.
• Optimization studies and subsidies for operation and maintenance of wastewater
treatment plants.
• Local stormwater program improvements.
• Training sponsored by local governments for local governments (e.g., peer-to-peer)
focused on addressing barriers to and innovative ideas for implementation of nutrient
and sediment reduction programs. Training conducted by jurisdictions that was
specifically requested by local entities is also eligible.
• Filling gaps and technical assistance to develop and implement environmental financing
revenue streams, including stimulation and leveraging of private capital, to pay for
nutrient and sediment reduction projects.
• Compliance monitoring and assistance, and inspections and enforcement of MS4s,
construction stormwater, animal feeding operations, and wastewater treatment plants.
• Development of new, or improvement of, existing authorities, rules, codes, zoning,
and/or regulations to reduce nutrient and sediment loads delivered to the Bay through
enforceable or otherwise binding commitments.
• Green Infrastructure projects including Chesapeake Bay Green Street-Green Jobs-Green
Towns (G3) Initiative: The G3 Initiative supports community-based green stormwater
infrastructure in urbanized watersheds for water quality benefits. Local government
implementation funds can be used for "green streets," specifically for the design and
implementation of green infrastructure-based stormwater management practices,
increasing urban tree canopy in conjunction with stormwater management practices,
and replacing impervious surfaces with more permeable materials. Additional
information about the G3 Initiative and other green infrastructure funding
opportunities, which might offer options for coordination, can be found at:
https://cbtrust.org/green-streets-green-iobs-green-towns/ and
https://www.epa.gov/green-infrastructure/green-infrastructure-funding-opportunities
• Projects that emphasize nutrient and sediment load reduction efforts with co-benefits,
such as source water protection and local hazard mitigation planning.
-42-
-------
• Development and implementation of protocols and procedures and provision of staff
resources to track, verify and report BMP data from local governments, conservation
districts, non-governmental organizations and other local partners implementing BMPs.
Jurisdictions may request EPA in-kind services by having EPA contractors assist local entities
with implementation needs identified by EPA in its milestone evaluations.
Jurisdictions are expected to be able to track wastewater facility, stormwater management, and
other BMP implementation activities they fund with this money. They should submit these
practice implementation data to CBPO through NEIEN, in accordance with Attachment 4. The
CBP partnership's Chesapeake Bay Basinwide BMP Verification Framework clearly states
jurisdictions are ultimately responsible for providing the necessary documentation of
verification of all practices implemented within their part of the Chesapeake Bay watershed and
submitted through each respective state's NEIEN node for crediting of nutrient and sediment
pollutant load reductions. They are responsible for documenting - in detail or by reference -
the verification programs, protocols and procedures for all agencies, organizations, institutions
and businesses contributing to the collective set of tracked, verified and reported practices for
nutrient and sediment load reductions credit. Jurisdictions should use their CBRAP funding if
they need to improve tracking, verification, and reporting of local implementation actions.
5. Financial Requirements
This section provides information regarding cost-share requirements, in-kind calculations for
EPA onsite grantees, and information regarding the Federal Financial Report requirements.
a. Cost-Share Requirements
CBPO is funded under the Clean Water Act, Section 117. For funds awarded on or after
December 26, 2014, all EPA recipients must comply with 2 CFR 200.306 for cost-sharing or
matching. Recipients must spend cost-share funds on activities or projects in direct support of
the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, such as staff working on Bay-related projects. Cost-share
sources must be from non-federal sources. Recipients can use in-kind services, such as
volunteer hours, in-lieu of a cash match, as long as the recipient maintains a record of these
hours. The rates associated with these volunteer hours must be reasonable and in accordance
with wages in the wider labor market and approved by your project officer.
The table below summarizes the cost-share requirements by grant program:
Grant Program
CWA Section
Cost-Share Percentage
CBIG
117(e)(1)(A)
50%
CBRAP
117(e)(1)(A)
50%
Monitoring grants
117(e)(1)(B)
50%
Small watershed grants
117(g)(2)
25%
Other competitive grants
117(d)
5% - 50%, see RFAs
-43-
-------
To calculate the specific cost-share amount, follow these two-step equations:
• For 5% cost-share:
1. EPA amount (including any in- kind) -f 95% = 100% of Total Grant Amount
2. 100% of Total Grant Amount x 5% = Recipient's Cost-Share Amount
(e.g., $425,000 -f 95% = $447,368; $447,368 x 5% = $22,368, which is the
recipient's cost-share amount)
• For 25% cost-share:
1. EPA amount (including any in- kind) -f 75% = 100% of Total Grant Amount
2. 100% of Total Grant Amount x 25% = Recipient's Cost-Share Amount
(e.g., $375,000 -f 75% = $500,000; $500,000 x 25% = $125,000, which is the
recipient's cost-share amount)
If a jurisdiction chooses to use part of their CBRAP funding to obtain contractual services
through EPA's contract (as an in-kind service), their cost-share amount is based on their full
grant amount including the contractual service. For example, if EPA awards the jurisdiction
$2,758,047 and it decides to use $1,000,000 to obtain services from EPA's contract (in-kind
services), then the recipient would receive $1,758,047 in cash. However, the recipient will still
be required to match the full award amount of $2,758,047.
In addition to the cost-share requirement, recipients must adhere to the requirement in the
Clean Water Act, Section 117(e)(6) - "Administrative Costs." This section requires a 10% cap on
grant administration costs. The costs of administering the grant (e.g., salaries and fringe
benefits) shall not exceed 10% of the total project costs. The budget detail of your application
for federal assistance (SF-424) should reflect how your administrative costs will comply with the
cap. The worksheet can help you in calculating allowable administrative costs.
b. EPA In-kind and Supplies
The dollar value associated with providing space, supplies, etc., for grantees located onsite at
EPA offices is considered in-kind funding. If the grant/cooperative agreement supports staff
housed in the EPA Bay Program Office, the application budget must include the cost to house
the employee(s). For FY 2012 and beyond (until amended), the EPA in-kind amount is $9,400
per person per year. Recipients must include in-kind funding in the federal share of funding
when calculating their cost-share amount. Grantee staff located onsite at CBPO must obtain a
Personal Identity Verification (PIV) card. Recipients should contact their EPA project officer for
information about obtaining a PIV card.
c. Indirect cost rates
Under 2 CFR Part 200, there are separate appendices for determining indirect cost rates for
institutions of higher education (Appendix III), non-profit organizations (Appendix IV). state and
local governments (Appendix V). and tribes (Appendix VII).
-44-
-------
d. Allowability and Reasonability of Costs
For grants awarded on or after January 1, 2011, EPA provided project officers and grant
specialists with guidance on determining the allowability and reasonableness of certain cost
items under assistance agreements. Funding for evening banquets and receptions are
prohibited in most cases. Costs for light refreshments and meals at meetings, conferences,
training workshops, and outreach activities (events) are allowable if necessary to complete the
objective but must be justified in the work plan and in the budget detail. EPA will not approve
the use of grant funds for any portion of an event where alcohol is served, purchased, or
otherwise available even if grant funds are not used to purchase the alcohol. See the General
Terms and Conditions for more information.
-45 -
-------
E. POST-AWARD REQUIREMENTS
1. Applicable regulations
For a list of applicable regulations, please consult the chart below.
2 CFR Parts 200 and 1500 are available at: www.ecfr.gov. The recipient should select Title 2 -
Grants and Agreements, Subtitle A or Subtitle B.
40 CFR Parts 30 and 31 are available at:
www.gpo.gov/fdsvs/browse/collectionCfr.action?collectionCode=CFR. The recipient should
enter the year of their grant award and then expand Title 40, Chapter I, Subchapter B.
Applicable to Funding Awarded on or After December 26, 2014:
Applicant/
OMB Grant
OMB Grant
Disadvantage
Suspension
Intergovernmental
Recipient
Guidance,
Guidance,
d Business
and
Review Regulation
Type
Administrative
Cost
Enterprise
Debarment
Requirements
Principles
Regulation
Regulation
Nonprofit
2 CFR Part
2 CFR Part
40 CFR Part 33
2 CFR Part
40 CFR Part 29
Organization
1500 and 2
CFR Part 200,
Subparts A
through D
200,
Subpart E
180, and 2
CFR Part
1532
Educational
2 CFR Part
2 CFR Part
40 CFR Part 33
2 CFR Part
40 CFR Part 29
Institutions
1500 and 2
CFR Part 200,
Subparts A
through D
200,
Subpart E
180, and 2
CFR Part
1532
State, local,
2 CFR Part
2 CFR Part
40 CFR Part 33
2 CFR Part
40 CFR Part 29
and Indian
1500 and 2
200,
180, and 2
Tribal
CFR Part 200,
Subpart E
CFR Part
governments
Subparts A
through D
1532
Additional information about the Uniform Grants Guidance is available at cfo.gov/cofar.
2. New or Revised Grants Policies
EPA Grant Policies
EPA grant policies may affect how recipients manage and administer EPA assistance
agreements. A full library of EPA policy and guidance documents is available on the EPA Grant
Policy Resources website. Excerpts from recently revised grants policies are as follows:
-46-
-------
1) EPA issued RAIN-2021-G01, Status of Implementation of Government-wide DUNS/UEI
Transition. This notice informs applicants and recipients of the status of EPA's implementation
of the Government-wide transition from using DUNS as a Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) to a
SAM.gov created UEI. (See Application Requirements for more information.)
2) EPA issued RAIN-2021-G02. EPA Intergovernmental Review, which informs applicants and
recipients about how to determine which EPA financial assistance programs and activities are
subject to Intergovernmental Review requirements. (See Application Requirements and for
more information.)
3) EPA issued RAIN-2022-G02. Rescission of Grants Policy Issuance 04-04 Consultant Fees Under
EPA Assistance Agreements and Related Revision to Best Practice Guide for Procuring Services,
Supplies, and Equipment Under EPA Assistance Agreements. This notice rescinds GPI-04-04 and
directs recipients to sources that provide more current guidance on the Consultant Cap,
including the EPA General Terms and Conditions, the Best Practice Guide for Procuring Services.
Supplies, and Equipment Under EPA Assistance Agreements, and the Interim General Budget
Development Guidance for Applicants and Recipients of EPA Financial Assistance.
4) EPA issued RAIN-2021-G03. 2021-2024 Information Collection Request Renewal of EPA
Assistance Agreement Forms. This notice implements revisions to the EPA's assistance
agreement forms used by applicants and recipients.
Build America, Buy America Act
In Title IX of IIJA, Congress passed the Build America, Buy America (BABA) Act, which
establishes strong and permanent domestic sourcing requirements across all Federal financial
assistance programs for infrastructure.11 Section 70914(a) of the IIJA states when a Buy
America preference under BABA applies: "Not later than... [May 14, 2022], the head of each
Federal agency shall ensure that none of the funds made available for a Federal financial
assistance program for infrastructure...may be obligated for a project unless all of the iron,
steel, manufactured products, and construction materials used in the project are produced in
the United States." Therefore, federal awards obligated on or after May 14, 2022, must
comply with the BABA requirements.12
In considering whether a project is a BABA-applicable project, recipients should consider the
following questions. If all three are yes, BABA applies.
1) Does the project involve the construction, alteration, or repair of, e.g., water
infrastructure, buildings, or real property?
11 Note that the BABA requirements apply to all federal funding, not just those awards issued under IIJA.
12 BABA applies to 1) all new awards made on or after May 14,2022 and 2) all amended awards that add
funding on or after May 14,2022. No-cost amendments (those where no funding is being added) do not
trigger inclusion of the BABA term and condition in the award.
-47-
-------
2) Does the project serve a public function (e.g., publicly owned/operated, serve a public
function, place of public accommodation)?
3) Does the project involve leaving iron, steel, manufactured goods, or construction
materials permanently affixed?
If it is determined that BABA applies, recipients should consider whether the project meets
the criteria for one of the EPA-approved program-wide waivers.
1) Small project waiver: Projects where assistance agreements or subawards are less
than $250,000.
2) De minimus waiver: Projects where the products covered by BABA cumulatively
comprise no more than five percent of the total project costs.
Additionally, pursuant to Section 70914(c) of the BABA Act, projects subject to BABA may
apply for a waiver from complying with BABA requirements when:
1) applying the domestic content procurement preference would be inconsistent with
the public interest (a "public interest waiver");
2) types of iron, steel, manufactured products, or construction materials are not
produced in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities or of a
satisfactory quality (a "nonavailability waiver"); or
3) the inclusion of iron, steel, manufactured products, or construction materials
produced in the United States will increase the cost of the overall project by more
than 25 percent (an "unreasonable cost waiver").
For general information on BABA, please visit EPA's webpage at
https://www.epa.gov/cwsrf/build-america-buy-america-baba.
Questions regarding the BABA requirements can be directed to the recipient's EPA project
officer or BABA-OW@epa.gov.
3. Quality Assurance
This section describes specific technical documentation and reporting requirements for
assistance agreements that involve the collection or use of environmental data and
information. This includes a description of Quality Management Plans (QMPs) and Quality
Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs).
Environmental data include direct measurements of environmental conditions or releases and
data compiled from pre-existing sources of information, such as computer databases, computer
models, literature files, and historical databases. Direct measurements of surface waters,
sediment, atmospheric conditions, living resources, and land cover are examples of data
collected for the CBP partnership. Pre-existing data related to BMP implementation,
wastewater treatment and the development, calibration, verification, and application of
environmental models are subject to quality assurance requirements.
-48-
-------
Quality assurance requirements for EPA grants and cooperative agreements are mandated in 2
CFR 1500.12. The regulations state:
(a) Quality assurance applies to all assistance agreements that involve environmentally
related data operations, including environmental data collection, production, or use.
(b) Recipients shall develop a written quality assurance system commensurate with the
degree of confidence needed for the environmentally related data operations.
(c) If the recipient complies with EPA's quality policy, the system will be presumed to be
in compliance with the quality assurance system requirement. The recipient may also
comply with the quality assurance system requirement by complying with American
National Standard ANSI/ASQ E4:2014: Quality management systems for environmental
information and technology programs.
(d) The recipient shall submit the written quality assurance system for EPA review. Upon
EPA's written approval, the recipient shall implement the EPA-approved quality
assurance system.
(e) EPA Quality Policy is available at: https://www.epa.gov/qualitv/agencv-wide-
qualitv-program-documents#policv.
If required, a recipient must establish, document, and implement a quality system that applies
to all work within the scope of the agreement. The recipient's quality system is documented in
a QMP and a QAPP and must be approved by EPA prior to initiating work. See the EPA website
for additional information on the quality assurance requirements for organizations receiving
EPA financial assistance. Further information on the Chesapeake Bay Program Office quality
assurance planning process may be found at
https://www.chesapeakebay.net/documents/CBPO Quality Manual Final 08April2020.pdf.
The jurisdictions are required to annually update their quality assurance project plans
documenting any substantive changes or other enhancements to their BMP verification
programs as committed to within the CBP partnership's October 2014 Strengthening
Verificgtion of Best Mgnggement Prgctices Implemented in the Chesgpegke Bgy Wgtershed: A
Bgsinwide Frgmework. These quality assurance project plans will also be consistent with EPA
quality assurance guidelines referenced herein.
a. Quality Management Plan (QMP)
Recipients of assistance agreements having environmental data operations shall submit a QMP
prepared in accordance with the specifications in EPA's Quality Management Plan Standard.
The specifications include organizational structure; quality system description; personnel
qualifications and training; policies for procurement, documentation and records; computer
hardware and software standards; and procedures for planning, implementing, and evaluating
work. One QMP may apply to several assistance agreements if administered under the same
management system. Laboratory Quality Manuals are required for ongoing monitoring
programs.
-49-
-------
A QMP must be approved by the organization's quality assurance and senior managers, and
then submitted to the EPA project officer at least 45 days prior to the initiation of data
collection or data compilation. QMPs are approved by the U.S. EPA Region 3 Quality Assurance
Manager (or designee).
An approved Quality Management Plan is valid for up to five years unless there is a major
reorganization that affects quality assurance functions and structures in the organization.
Senior managers and/or QA officers are required to review their QMP annually. If an approved
plan is expected to expire during the course of the agreement, include a deliverable for the
submission of a revised plan.
Organizations may be granted an exception or modification to the QMP requirement if they
meet certain criteria, which may include but not be limited to the following:
• One-time, short-term, and special projects or projects of limited scope; and/or
• Organizations generating, collecting, compiling, and/or using environmental data for
public education purposes.
b. Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)
Recipients of assistance agreements having environmental data operations shall also submit a
QAPP prepared according to the specifications in EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance
Project Plans, QA/R-5. A QAPP documents the technical and quality control aspects of an
individual project, such as sampling design, sample collection, analytical methods, quality
control, and data management activities. In developing this plan, all efforts must be made to
produce data that is comparable to data collected previously and currently by other CBP grant
recipients and partners.
Recipients of assistance agreements for data analysis projects involving the gathering and/or
use of existing environmental data for purposes other than those for which they were originally
collected shall also submit a QAPP. For these projects, recipients shall prepare a QAPP to
include the requirements identified in Chapter 3 of the Quality Assurance Project Plan
Requirements for Secondary Data Research Projects document. Additional guidance for projects
with modeling and geospatial needs can be accessed at the EPA Region 3 QAPP website. If
primary data will also be generated as part of the project, then the information required in this
document can be incorporated into the associated QAPP to address the secondary data.
Protocols for CBP water quality monitoring and guidance for reporting best management
practice data may be found in the following documents:
• Methods qnd Quqlity Assurance for Chesqpeqke Bqy Wqter Quqlity Monitoring Proqrqm
• Guidance for Revising the Jurisdictions' Chesapeake Bay Implementation Grant Quality
Assurance Project Plans for Tracking, Verifying, and Reporting Nutrient and Sediment
Pollutant Load Reducing Practices, Treatments, and Technologies - Appendix Q in
Strengthening Verification of Best Management Practices Implemented in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed: A Basinwide Framework (Oct. 2014).
-50-
-------
A QAPP must be approved by the CBP Delegated Approving Official (DAO) before the recipient
commences associated data collection, compilation, or use. The QAPP may be submitted to the
project officer along with the draft application at least 45 days prior to the initiation of each
data collection or data compilation activity or when requested by CBPO.
For ongoing monitoring programs, the QAPP should be reviewed annually and updated, if
necessary, for changes to field, laboratory, quality control or data management procedures.
Updates to jurisdictions' BMP Verification Program Plans (VPPs) describing new data sources
and changes to methods of tracking, reporting, and verification are due by September!/* (this
deadline was changed from December 1st to September 1st beginning with the 2022 Grant
Guidance). EPA's Office of Environmental Information requires QAPPs to be reviewed annually.
If there are no changes, the recipient must provide written documentation (e.g., a letter) to the
project officer confirming a review was conducted and no changes have occurred. The recipient
must notify the project officer prior to changing the number of samples, the number of sites, or
parameters measured.
4. Project Progress Reports
After the assistance agreement has been awarded, the recipient will need to complete the
entire progress report template (see Attachment 3) and submit it to the project officer when
due (i.e., quarterly or semi-annually and final). There will be a programmatic grant condition in
your assistance agreement award document that specifies the reporting period.
The recipient must use the progress report template to document progress of outputs and
outcomes that are included for each objective in the work plan. Revisions will require the
approval of the project officer. Using this template will eliminate the need to repeatedly type
the same information each time an interim (quarterly or semi-annually) performance report is
due.
5. Additional Requirements for CBIG and CBRAP Grants
It is assumed the results achieved by coordinating CBIG and CBRAP grant activities with other
available state and federal programs produces cost-effective solutions that meet the current
nutrient and sediment allocations in the Chesapeake BayTMDL, WIP commitments, two-year
milestones for water quality, and respond to EPA's evaluations of the WIPs and milestones and
assessments of jurisdictions' programs. It is also noted this coordination will support the
jurisdictions' implementation of the management strategies developed for each of the
applicable outcomes identified in the 2014 Agreement. The expenditure of public funds
requires accountability and transparency through periodic cost-effectiveness evaluations.
EPA expects the Bay jurisdictions and federal agencies to submit, on January 15 of each year,
written progress reports for the two-year milestones. Please note that this requirement is
separate from the project progress reports discussed above. Even numbered years should
-51-
-------
include a written status update on each of the milestones to demonstrate the progress
achieved during the milestone period. In odd numbered years, the Bay jurisdictions and federal
agencies may choose from two options to provide a status update. Under option 1, Bay
jurisdictions and federal agencies may choose to provide a written status update for each
milestone, as is submitted in even numbered years. Under option 2, Bay jurisdictions and
federal agencies may provide a written update to EPA using the most recent EPA evaluation.
The progress report would include written updates on the "Key Areas of Concern" from the
latest evaluation and any additional successes or challenges encountered during the milestone
period. Option 2 is available to reduce reporting burdens in the interim years.
EPA may require, or revise grant terms and conditions to require, more frequent written
progress reporting based upon the jurisdictions' progress in achieving the WIP and milestone
goals. All progress reports should be submitted to the appropriate EPA State WIP Lead.
a. Data Submission Schedules
Annual progress reporting is an output of grants. Additional information about data submission
schedules is contained in Attachment 4. Grant recipients are expected to provide point source
and nonpoint source nutrient and sediment load reduction implementation progress data on
the following schedule every year:
Submission
Date Range of Data
Submission Schedule
Initial
July 1 - June 30
September 1 - November 30
Final
July 1 - June 30
By December 1
EPA expects data submitted to CBPO to be complete, quality assured, and in proper formats.
This will allow CBPO to begin immediate processing of the recipients' data in a CBP Watershed
Model (WSM) a nnual progress scenario (see Attachment 4 for data specifications and
requirements and additional details for submission schedules).
For the wastewater sector, while DOEE is the grant recipient, DC Water Authority is responsible
for reporting the point source nutrient and sediment load reduction implementation progress
data directly to CBPO.
In the event data are not submitted in time, are inaccurate, or do not use the appropriate
NEIEN or wastewater format for CBPO to calculate annual progress toward the Reducing
Pollutions Indicators, CBPO will use the most recent quality-assured data submitted by the
jurisdiction. Please try to meet deadlines in the subsequent years.
b. Wetland Data
Wetland restoration, creation and rehabilitation are credited as BMPs in the CBP partnership's
Phase 6 Watershed Model. Wetland restoration is an indicator for the annual Bay Barometer
and the online accountability tool Chesapeake Progress. CBP therefore needs annual wetland
BMP data (in all three categories) from the state partners to update the model and the
-52-
-------
indicator. Accordingly, the seven Bay jurisdictions will submit wetland BMP information via the
NEIEN as a deliverable of their grant according to the Data Submission Schedule identified in
this guidance. Jurisdictional leads for the model Input-Decks are strongly encouraged to
communicate with their natural resource agency wetland program managers to ensure
accuracy of reporting and to avoid any double-counting of projects. At a minimum,
jurisdictional leads should request wetland BMP data from the USDA, Natural Resource
Conservation Service and Farm Service Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, state
conservation departments, state agriculture departments, Ducks Unlimited, The Nature
Conservancy, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and other local conservation organizations involved
in non-tidal and tidal wetland conservation.
The Wetland Workgroup will continue to advise the CBP modeling team and other relevant CBP
staff to clarify existing and updated wetland BMP definitions and data fields. New guidance on
these terms and definitions will be provided to the jurisdictions as necessary to facilitate
accurate reporting of progress toward wetland-related outcomes.
6. Unliquidated Obligations fULOs)
EPA staff are required to certify annually to the EPA administrator that unneeded funds have
been de-obligated from EPA assistance agreements to implement the Government
Accountability Office's Policy and Procedures Manual for Guidance of Federal Agencies. Title
7; the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act; and OMB Circular A-123. To accomplish this
task, EPA reviews all unliquidated obligations on assistance agreements.
ULOs are the unexpended balance of federal funds awarded. EPA is committed to ensuring
funds are being utilized properly and in a timely manner. As part of this commitment, EPA
project officers review ULO balances on grants, and EPA may use these balances to determine
funding levels for future awards. For example, in FY 2013 EPA used ULOs to allocate reductions
to CBRAP, Small Watershed, and some Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 117(d) grants.
Circumstances will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The CBPO intends to work with the
recipient whenever there are ULOs of concern and when making funding decisions based on
ULO balances. In situations where recipients have sustained ULOs, EPA may choose to take
other actions to reduce ULOs including redirecting federal funds.
To strengthen the identification and prevention of the unwarranted accumulation of ULOs, EPA
project officers and grant specialists are required, as part of current monitoring activities, to
monitor the disbursement of funding awarded to the recipient. Each project officer and grant
specialist must validate the necessity of the remaining monies and document their files
accordingly. This will require ongoing dialogue between the recipient and the project officer.
In addition, EPA adds a term and condition to all awards that establishes clear progress
expectations. If a recipient has a history of accumulating unliquidated obligations without
adequate justification, EPA may include a term and condition requiring the recipient to submit
quarterly budget reports. More information regarding EPA's procedures for managing ULOs can
-53-
-------
be found in GPI 11-01 - Managing Unliquidated Obligations and Ensuring Progress under EPA
Assistance Agreements.
7. Federal Financial Report (FFR) - SF-425
All recipients must use SF-425, Federal Financial Report (FFR), to report the financial status of
their grant(s). A blank, fillable FFR, as well as instructions for how to complete the form, are
available on the EPA Financial Services website.
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 10a
through 10c). Therefore, all fields on the FFR need to be filled out except for 10a, 10b, and 10c.
However, it should be noted that cost-share ratios stated in the application and budget must be
included in the final FFR.
Final FFRs are due to EPA no later than 120 days after the end of the grant budget/project
period. If your assistance agreement requires submission of an annual interim FFR, please
submit the SF-425 form (FFR) within 90 days of the expiration of each 12-month cycle. All FFRs
should be sent to the Research Triangle Park Finance Center (RTPFC) at rtpfc-grants@epa.gov
with a copy to the grant specialist of record.
If you have any questions, please contact Region 3 RTPFC financial specialist Sarah Olive
(olive.sarah@epa.gov). or contact customer service at 919-541-1550 or rtpfc-grants@epa.gov.
8. Monitoring and Grant Enforcement
After the assistance award is approved, the EPA project officer must ensure federal funds are
being spent appropriately. To do this, the EPA project officer must:
1) Review the progress reports and other work outputs to ensure 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 closeout monitoring reviews in accordance with EPA Order
5700.6A2; 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.
When an EPA project officer observes through any type of periodic monitoring activity that the
recipient is failing to meet pre-approved programmatic timelines or milestones, the EPA project
officer will require the recipient to update the work plan accordingly (see Modifications to
Award Documents). In addition, EPA may take action as described below.
It is important to get changes to the assistance agreements in writing. A recipient's written
request for a change must be accompanied by a narrative justification for the proposed revision
-54-
-------
and must be submitted to the project officer. The project officer will then forward this change
request to the grants office along with their recommendation.
Under the Uniform Grants Guidance, if a recipient fails to comply with federal statutes,
regulations, or the terms and conditions of an award, EPA may impose one or more additional
conditions, as described in 2 CFR 200.208. Further, EPA may impose one or more of the
conditions from 2 CFR 200.208 under the following circumstances:
a. Based on the criteria set forth in 2 CFR 200.206 ("Federal awarding agency review of risk
posed by applicants");
b. When an applicant or recipient has a history of failure to comply with the general or
specific terms and conditions of a federal award;
c. When an applicant or recipient fails to meet expected performance goals as described in
2 CFR 200.211 ("Information contained in a Federal award"). These include specific
performance goals, indicators, milestones, or expected outcomes (such as outputs or
services performed or public impacts of any of these) with an expected timeline for
accomplishment; or
d. When an applicant or recipient is not otherwise responsible.
The conditions from 2 CFR 200.208tc) include:
a. Requiring payments as reimbursements rather than advance payments;
b. Withholding authority to proceed to the next phase until receipt of evidence of
acceptable performance within a given period of performance;
c. Requiring additional, more detailed financial reports;
d. Requiring additional project monitoring;
e. Requiring the recipient to obtain technical or management assistance; or
f. Establishing additional prior approvals.
Prior to adding one or more of these conditions, EPA will notify the recipient in writing of the
additional requirements, the reasons for the conditions, the steps it must take to have EPA
remove the conditions, and the method for requesting reconsideration of the additional
requirements.
If EPA determines noncompliance cannot be remedied by imposing one or more of the above
conditions, then EPA may take one or more of the following actions found in 2 CFR 200.339.
EPA will notify the recipient in writing of the action taken, the reasons for the action, the steps
it must take to come into compliance, and their appeal rights. The potential additional actions
are:
• Temporarily withhold cash payments pending correction of the deficiency by the
recipient or the recipient may risk more severe enforcement action by EPA.
• Disallow (that is, deny both use of funds and any applicable matching credit for) all or
part of the cost of the activity or action not in compliance.
• Wholly or partly suspend or terminate the current award.
-55 -
-------
• Initiate suspension or debarment proceedings as authorized under 2 CFR Parts 180 and
1532.
• Withhold further awards for the project or program.
• Take other remedies that may be legally available.
EPA can also terminate an award in whole or in part for cause if the recipient fails to comply
with the terms and conditions of an award (2 CFR 200.340(a)(1) and (2)).
EPA may exercise other options if a Bay jurisdiction fails to meet EPA's expectations for WIPs
and milestones or does not demonstrate satisfactory progress toward achieving nutrient and
sediment allocations established by EPA in the Chesapeake Bay TMDL. This only applies to CBIG
and CBRAP grants.
These options were communicated to all the states and the District of Columbia in the
December 29. 2009 letter from the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 3. According to this
letter, EPA may condition or redirect CBRAP and/or CBIG funds if a jurisdiction committed to
incorporate the elements of their WIP or milestones into the grant work plan and does not
adequately perform the activities identified in the EPA-approved work plan. Potential funding
actions by EPA may be targeted to improve the existing program or work plan deliverables
within the jurisdiction. Likewise, jurisdictions should give priority to addressing state regulatory
programmatic deficiencies identified in EPA's State Review Framework, Permit Quality Review,
Trading and Offset Program Assessments, Stormwater Assessments, and Agricultural
Assessments that can be an impediment in achieving their WIP and milestone commitments
and targets.
Additionally, if EPA determines a recipient is not making satisfactory progress with their CBIG or
CBRAP grants, EPA may decide not to provide additional funding or reduce future funding.
Jurisdictions should also refer to the November 4. 2009 letter concerning EPA's expectations on
the first two elements of the Chesapeake Bay accountability framework: the WIPs and the two-
year milestones.
9. Debarment and Suspension
Recipients are required to ensure contracts or subawards are only awarded to responsible
entities. Therefore, recipients must verify prior to award that such entities are eligible in
accordance with the methods located in 2 CFR Part 180. EPA strongly encourages recipients to
check the Excluded Parties List System, which recently migrated over to the System for Award
Management (https://www.sam.gov/SAM/). In addition, recipients are responsible for
requiring contractors and subrecipients to comply with Subpart C of 2 CFR Part 180 regarding
suspension and debarment and passing the same requirement down, as appropriate.
If, at any point after the award, the recipient learns it failed to notify EPA prior to award with
suspension and debarment information as noted in the last paragraph under the Application
Requirements section of this guidance, or if circumstances have changed regarding the required
-56-
-------
information to be disclosed, then the recipient must provide EPA with immediate written
notification.
10. Modifications to Award Documents
Recipients should send written notification of changes to their EPA project officer, with a copy
to the grant specialist of record, as soon as the recipient becomes aware of the necessary
change(s). All budgetary changes should be submitted using SF-424A and a revised budget
detail. When submitting a revised detail, please add text to describe changes that cannot be
readily discerned in the columns (see Attachment 2). In addition, any change requiring a
formal amendment must also be sent to the EPA Grants and Audit Management Branch at
R3 grant applications@epa.gov. Recipients should contact their project officer regarding
further information about the process for modifying awards.
Changes not Requiring EPA Project Officer Approval or Formal Amendment:
Minor changes that are consistent with the project objective and within the scope of the
agreement or minor adjustments to the project budget, provided funds are used in accordance
with the approved work plan or application, do not require project officer approval. For
example, a recipient may make minor changes to the approach or other aspects of the project
to meet objectives sooner or to expedite completion.
For grants where the federal share is equal to or below $150,000, recipients may transfer funds
among cost categories, objectives, functions and activities without seeking prior approval.
Even though these changes do not require project officer approval, EPA requests notification as
a courtesy.
2) Changes That Require EPA Project Officer Approval (No Formal Amendment):
• A change in key personnel;
• The absence for more than three months or a 25% reduction in time devoted to the
project by the approved project director or principal investigator;
• The transfer of funds allotted for training allowances to other categories;
• The transfer of funds budgeted for participant support costs;
• Unless described in the application and funded in the approved award, the subaward,
transfer, or contracting out of any work under an award; and/or
• Contracting out or otherwise obtaining services of a third party to perform activities
central to the purpose of the award not already approved in the work plan/narrative.
3) Changes That Require a Formal Amendment:
• Any revision resulting in the increase or decrease in funds;
• Major revisions to the objectives or scope of the project (PLEASE NOTE: The recipient
cannot request revisions that substantially change the original project objectives
selected under the competitive process);
-57-
-------
• Extensions to the budget and project period (PLEASE NOTE: The recipient must notify
the EPA project officer in writing with supporting reasons and a revised expiration date
at least 10 business days before the expiration date specified in the award, as well as
provide a revised work plan addressing work to be completed through the duration of
the extension period. To merely exhaust unobligated balances is not a valid justification
for an extension); and
• Re-budget of funds (PLEASE NOTE: This applies to grants where the federal share is
above $150,000, and the cumulative amount of the funds to be re-budgeted is or is
expected to exceed 10 percent of the total budget).
11. Reasonable accommodations
Recipients and subrecipients are subject to the program accessibility provisions of Section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act, codified in 40 CFR Part 7. which includes an obligation to provide
individuals with disabilities reasonable accommodations and an equal and effective opportunity
to benefit from or participate in a program, including those offered through electronic and
information technology ("EIT"). In compliance with Section 504, EIT systems or products funded
by EPA awards must be designed to meet the diverse needs of users (e.g., U.S. public, recipient
personnel) without barriers or diminished function or quality. Systems shall include usability
features or functions that accommodate the needs of persons with disabilities, including those
who use assistive technology. At this time, EPA will consider a recipient's websites, interactive
tools, and other EIT as being in compliance with Section 504 if such technologies meet
standards established under Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, codified at 36 CFR Part 1194.
While Section 508 does not apply directly to grant recipients, we encourage recipients to follow
either the 508 guidelines or other comparable guidelines that concern accessibility to EIT for
individuals with disabilities. Recipients may wish to consult the latest Section 508 guidelines
issued by the U.S. Access Board or W3C's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0.
12. Subawards
Recipients may subaward funds to other organizations to carry out a portion of the federal
award. A subaward is a legal agreement between the pass-through entity issuing the subaward
and the subrecipient organization. Subawards are distinct from contracts even if the pass-
through entity uses the term "contract" internally to describe the subaward arrangement. In
particular, subawards are distinct from contracts in several ways:
Subaward:
Contract:
Public purpose
Provides goods and services to the
recipient
Subrecipent may not profit from the
award
Reasonable profit is allowable
-58-
-------
May be awarded without Requires full and open competition,
competition, unless competition is except for amounts below the micro-
required by state, regulation, or the purchase threshold or when sole
terms and conditions of the award source procurement is justified
If a recipient chooses to pass-through funds to another organization via a subaward, the
recipient is responsible for complying with the applicable regulatory and policy requirements,
as outlined in 2 CFR Part 200 and the EPA Subaward Policy. Subrecipients are subject to the
same Federal requirements as the pass-through entity, including all Terms and Conditions
contained in the assistance agreement.
13. Award Closeout Requirements
Closeout is the process by which the EPA determines that all applicable administrative actions
and all required work of the award have been completed. The closeout process generally begins
once the period of performance for the award ends, but it may begin sooner if all project
requirements have been met prior to the award expiration date.
No later than 120 days after the end of the period of performance, the recipient must:
• Perform all final drawdowns related to the award (All costs must be incurred prior to the
budget and project period end date);
• Submit the final financial report (FFR) (SF-425) to RTP with a copy to the grant specialist;
• Submit the final progress report to project officer;
• Submit the final MBE/WBE report (EPA Form 5700-52A) to r3 mbe-
wbe reports@epa.gov with a copy to the grant specialist; and
• Submit a Property Report (SF-428) if applicable.
Copies of the required forms can be found at https://www.epa.gov/grants/epa-grantee-forms.
The final progress report must use the template provided in Attachment 3 of this Guidance
(identify the report type as 'Final').
Generally, recipients must retain grant files for at least three years after the date of submission
of the final FFR. The retention period may be extended in certain circumstances, as outlined in
2 CFR 200.334.
Additional information and resources can be found on the EPA's Closeout FAQ webpage.
Questions regarding closeout should be directed to your EPA project officer and/or grant
specialist, as appropriate.
-59-
-------
CONCLUSION
As you tackle the challenges of applying for assistance agreements (grants or cooperative
agreements) from the federal government, we encourage you to call your EPA project officer
for assistance. Project officers are here to help you submit the best possible application. The
ultimate goal is to support the CBP partnership and restoration of the Chesapeake Bay and its
watershed.
-60-
------- |