2016 tribal rfp final.pdf

2016 Request for Proposals: Puget Sound Action Agenda, Tribal Implementation Lead

Summary Information Federal Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – Region 10

Funding Opportunity Title: Puget Sound Action Agenda – Tribal Implementation Lead

Announcement Type: Request for Proposals (RFP)

Funding Opportunity Number: EPA-R10-PS-2015-002

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 66.121

Statutory Authority: The statutory authority for the assistance agreement to be funded under this announcement is Section 320(g) of the Clean Water Act (Public Law 33.U.S.C.1251-1387).

Dates: The closing date and time for receipt of proposal submissions is December 31, 2015, by 11:59

P.M., Eastern Standard Time (ET) in order to be considered for funding. Proposal packages must be submitted electronically to EPA through Grants.gov (http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/home.html) no later than the closing date and time.

Summary: This Request for Proposals (RFP) announces the availability of funds to develop and carry out a program to make and manage subawards that implement work that is both (a) identified in or consistent with the 2014/15 Puget Sound Action Agenda and subsequent updates of the Action Agenda, and (b) of high tribal priority.

Funding/Awards: EPA anticipates awarding one cooperative agreement from this announcement, subject to the availability of funds, the quality of proposals received, and other applicable considerations. Funding for the award is expected to be provided incrementally over a five-year period with an initial award of approximately $3,000,000 - $4,000,000 for the first year and subsequent incremental funding through a period of up to five (5) years. Incremental funding after the initial year of the award is subject to future appropriations, satisfactory performance of work, and other applicable considerations. The total estimated funding for this competitive opportunity is up to approximately

$25,000,000 for the five year period.

Funding will be awarded under Fiscal Year 2016 appropriations and, if applicable, subsequent appropriations, and the Clean Water Act, Title III, Section 320(g), (as amended). Successful applicants will be required to provide or coordinate a nonfederal match equal to the amount of federal financial assistance that would be provided in the assistance award, as described in Section III of this RFP.

http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/home.html

Important Dates November 2, 2015 (projected): RFP expected to be released and posted at: www.grants.gov and at http://www2.epa.gov/puget-sound/funding-and-grants-puget-sound.

November 16, 2015: EPA Region 10 hosts a webinar to address questions about the RFP.

November 30, 2015: Applicants should have a current registration or have applied for registration in the

System for Award Management (SAM) as well as having or applied for a Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) Data

Universal Number System (DUNS) registration. The process for obtaining both could take a month or more and both are required for applying to this funding opportunity. Applicants must be registered with www.grants.gov.

December 31, 2015: Proposals must be submitted through Grants.gov by December 31, 2015 by 11:59

PM (EST). See section IV of this RFP for more details.

February 1, 2016: Selected successful applicants notified and requested to develop and submit a complete application for assistance and negotiate a final work plan and budget for the proposal

March 28, 2016: Grant application and final work plan completed and submitted to EPA.

April 29, 2016: Award made, subject to Federal FY2016 appropriation.

The above dates are subject to change. EPA reserves the right to amend this solicitation. Amendments could be administrative (change of dates or location), technical (change in requirements), or affected by the anticipated funding. EPA will post amendments on the web page for this solicitation which may be found at: http://www2.epa.gov/puget-sound/funding-and-grants-puget-sound and Grants.gov. Please check the web site periodically for changes.

http://www.grants.gov/ http://www2.epa.gov/puget-sound/funding-and-grants-puget-sound

2016 Request for Proposals: Puget Sound Action Agenda, Tribal Implementation Lead Contents I. Funding Opportunity Description

A. Background Information and Program Summary

1. Puget Sound NEP, Management Conference, and Action Agenda

2. EPA Tribal Policies in Puget Sound

B. Objectives

C. Eligible Activities

D. EPA’s Strategic Plan Linkages, Environmental Results, and Logic Models

1. Region 10 FY15-18 Strategic Plan Linkages

2. Agency Strategic Plan Linkages

3. Environmental Results: Outputs, Outcomes, and Performance Measures

4. Logic Models

II. Award Information

A. Number and Amount of Awards

B. Start Date and Length of Project Period

C. Funding Type

D. Other Award Provisions

III. Eligibility Information

A. Eligible Applicants – See CFDA 66.121

B. Non-Federal Match Requirement

C. Threshold Eligibility Criteria

D. Funding Restrictions

IV. Proposal and Submission Information

A. Requirements to Submit Through “Grants.gov” and Limited Exception Procedures

B. Grants.gov Application Submission Instructions (see Appendix B)

C. Content of Proposal Submission

D. Submission Dates and Times

E. Additional Provisions for Applicants Incorporated into the Solicitation

F. Webinar on This Solicitation

V. Proposal Review Information

A. Evaluation Criteria

B. Review and Selection Process

VI. Award Administration Information

A. Award Notices

B. Administrative and National Policy Requirement

C. Reporting Requirement

D. Disputes

E. Additional Provisions for Applicants Incorporated Into the Solicitation

VII. Agency Contacts

VIII. Other Information

A. Riparian Buffers

B. Quality Assurance

C. Peer Review

D. Data Access and Information Release

E. Annual Grantee Conference

F. STORET Requirement

IX. Appendix A. Measuring Environmental Results: Logic Models, Outputs, and Outcomes

X. Appendix B: Grants.gov Submission Instructions

XI. Appendix C: Budget Sample

I. Funding Opportunity Description This RFP solicits proposals from eligible applicants to act, in coordination with the Puget Sound

Partnership (“Partnership” or PSP), EPA, and other relevant parties, as the Tribal Implementation Lead

(TIL) for the 2014/15 Puget Sound Action Agenda, and subsequent updates of the Action Agenda.

A. Background Information and Program Summary

1. Puget Sound NEP, Management Conference, and Action Agenda EPA, Washington State, Tribes, local governments, and nonprofit organizations have partnered for over

20 years to protect and restore Puget Sound through the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 320 National

Estuary Program (NEP). CWA Section 320 requires each NEP to establish a “Management Conference” to include representatives of each State and foreign nation located in part or whole in the estuarine zone of the estuary for which the conference is convened, Tribes, regional agencies, appropriate federal agencies, local governments, affected industries, academic institutions, and the public. Section 320 also requires the Management Conference to develop a “Comprehensive Conservation and Management

Plan” (CCMP) and to develop plans for the coordinated implementation of the plan.

The Partnership has been designated by the EPA and Washington State as the lead State agency for the

Management Conference for the Puget Sound NEP under CWA Section 320. The Partnership is defined in

State legislation to include the Leadership Council, Ecosystem Coordination Board, Science Panel and

Executive Director with staff. The Puget Sound NEP’s approved CCMP is the Puget Sound Action

Agenda.

In 2008, the Partnership published the first Puget Sound Action Agenda, a strategy to clean up, restore, and protect Puget Sound by 2020. On July 15, 2009, EPA approved the Action Agenda as the CCMP for

Puget Sound under CWA Section 320. As described in NEP guidance and policies, the CCMP for each

NEP is intended to be a living document. As such, EPA has requested that each NEP review and update its CCMP every three to five years to keep the CCMP current and most relevant. There have been two updates to the original Action Agenda – a major update in 2012, and a minor one in 2014. These Action

Agendas can be viewed at http://www.psp.wa.gov/action_agenda_center.php.

Through the 2012 update of the Action Agenda, three areas of focus were identified that would deliver the most progress toward ecosystem recovery for the funds and effort invested. Termed “Strategic

Initiatives,” these three priority areas are expected to provide the foundation of the Action Agenda through 2020. Accordingly, the strategies and sub-strategies from the 2012/2013 Action Agenda were carried forward into the 2014/2015 Action Agenda update and will also provide the foundation for an update of specific actions in the spring of 2016. The initiatives are briefly summarized below:

Protect and restore habitat.

Restoring damaged shorelines and protecting salmon habitats along rivers and streams flowing into

Puget Sound is necessary to sustain Puget Sound’s many beneficial uses including local salmon populations and the commercial and recreational uses, and tribal treaty rights, associated with these valuable fisheries.

The Puget Sound Action Agenda has identified at least six primary Vital Signs, or ecosystem indicators, for protecting and restoring aquatic habitats under this Strategic Initiative: Estuaries, Eelgrass Beds, http://www.psp.wa.gov/action_agenda_center.php

Marine Shorelines, Riparian Areas, Floodplains and Summer Streamflows. There is also an associated pressure reduction Vital Sign to more effectively manage land development from further degrading local aquatic ecosystems and contributing habitats.

Associated actions under this initiative are likely to include: protecting habitats through regulations, protecting and restoring habitats through incentives, removing barriers to broader habitat protection and restoration efforts and supporting development and funding of integrated actions identified in respective Vital Sign implementation strategies.

Prevent pollution from urban stormwater runoff

Many streams that drain into Puget Sound are threatened from stormwater runoff due to pollution, altered flow regimes and resulting habitat degradation. These stressors result in alteration of the quality and quantity of water flowing in a stream channel such that organisms are exposed to more rapid and severe changes in water flows, elevated levels of contaminants and nutrients, and altered channel stability and morphology. In short, polluted runoff from roads, roofs, parking lots, other paved areas, and from agriculture is considered the biggest threat to the water quality of Puget Sound and its contributing streams and rivers. Although we have many tools, technologies and practices for reducing stormwater pollution, we need to use them much more widely across the many local jurisdictions within the Puget Sound Basin.

The Puget Sound Action Agenda has identified four primary Vital Signs associated with improving stormwater management: improving overall water quality in fresh water, improving water quality in marine waters, improving the quality of associated bottom sediments, and reducing the levels of toxics in aquatic food-webs and fish. A complete description of the Puget Sound Action Agenda Vital Signs can be found at: http://www.psp.wa.gov/vitalsigns/index.php

Associated actions under this initiative are likely to include: taking a watershed or catchment-scale approach to managing stormwater; preventing new runoff problems; fixing existing problems in a prioritized way; continuing to control sources of pollution and continue to educate local communities, public utilities, and land managers, and supporting development and funding of integrated actions identified in respective Vital Sign implementation strategies.

Restore and re-open shellfish beds

Shellfish harvesting is a major economic sector in Puget Sound supporting over 3,200 local jobs and bringing in an estimated $270 million dollars to the region each year. It is also a tribal treaty right and a treasured tradition for countless Northwest families.

But harvests are threatened by pollution that has closed more than 7,000 acres of Puget Sound beaches from commercial, recreational and tribal harvest. The health of our local shellfish beds begins on land, through reduction of pollution from contaminated runoff and failing on-site sewage systems.

Supporting actions under this initiative are likely to include: preventing pollution through existing programs and regulations, preventing pollution through incentives, encouraging the recognition of the important beneficial use of shellfish, and supporting development and funding of integrated actions identified in respective Vital Sign implementation strategies.

2. EPA Tribal Policies in Puget Sound EPA Region 10 is committed to protecting human health and the environment throughout the Region, including on the lands and resources of Indian tribes, while supporting tribal self-government, fulfilling the federal trust responsibility, and strengthening the government-to-government relationship between the tribes of our Region and EPA.1

This RFP is an important component of carrying out our trust responsibilities in Puget Sound. In general terms, the trust responsibility requires the Agency to consider the interests of Tribes in planning and decision-making processes. At a national level, on December 1, 2014, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy reaffirmed EPA’s commitment to the Indian Policy that the Agency adopted in 1984. Under this policy, EPA recognizes the right of Tribes as sovereign governments to self-determination and acknowledges the Federal government’s trust responsibility to Tribes.

In the mid-1850s, a series of treaties were negotiated with Tribes in Washington. In 1974, the Boldt

Decision reaffirmed specific Tribes’ treaty-protected fishing rights and confirmed these Tribes as co-managers of the resource. Under this decision, these Tribes are entitled to 50 percent of the harvestable number of salmon returning to Washington waters. More recent federal court rulings upholding treaty-reserved shellfish harvest rights have further expanded the role and responsibilities of the Tribes as natural resource managers. In 2011, Western Washington treaty tribes issued the “Treaty

Rights at Risk” (TRAR) white paper2 and initiative, calling on federal agencies in the Northwest to reverse trends in habitat loss and to protect their treaty rights to harvest salmon and shellfish. In her December

1, 2014 statement, EPA Administrator McCarthy also recognized that “EPA programs should be implemented to enhance protection of tribal treaty rights and treaty-covered resources when we have discretion to do so.”

Tribal priorities that relate to Puget Sound protection and restoration may be articulated in various places, including in each individual tribe’s environmental priorities as expressed in Tribal Environmental

Action Plans; salmon recovery plans3 and related documents such as recent summaries of watershed-specific barriers to salmon recovery; the 2012 State of our Watersheds Report4 prepared by Northwest

Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC) member tribes, and other natural resource planning and prioritization documents developed by individual tribes.

EPA has sought to reflect and promote these interests in our role as NEP oversight authority and member of the Puget Sound Management Conference in several key ways. First, EPA, together with

NOAA and NRCS, leads a federal government response to the TRAR initiative including specific intra- and inter-agency commitments to improve habitat protection and restoration. Second, over the past 2 years

EPA has worked extensively and collaboratively with tribal representatives to the Puget Sound

Ecosystem Coordination Board and the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission to design and implement mechanisms to provide for robust tribal engagement in the 2016 Action Agenda update process. Third, EPA has since 2010 allocated a portion of its annual Puget Sound appropriation, or approximately

$300,000-$400,000 per year, per tribe or tribal consortium, to fund (a) Puget Sound non-competitive

1 EPA Region 10 Tribal Strategy, http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/TRIBAL.NSF/Programs/EPA's+Tribal+Strategy 2 http://nwifc.org/w/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2011/08/whitepaper628finalpdf.pdf 3 http://www.psp.wa.gov/SR_map.php 4 http://nwifc.org/publications/sow/ http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/TRIBAL.NSF/Programs/EPA's+Tribal+Strategy http://nwifc.org/w/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2011/08/whitepaper628finalpdf.pdf http://www.psp.wa.gov/SR_map.php http://nwifc.org/publications/sow/ tribal capacity awards to enable each Puget Sound tribe and Puget Sound tribal consortium to fully engage in the Puget Sound Management Conference, and (b) Puget Sound tribal implementation awards to allow each tribe to implement work of high tribal priority that is also in or consistent with the Action

Agenda. The Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC) was selected through a competitive process in FY2010 to manage the tribal implementation subaward program, funded incrementally over a

6 year period (FY2010-15). This RFP is for a Tribal Implementation Lead to continue a Puget Sound tribal implementation award program to begin in FY16.

B. Objectives

The objective of this RFP is to increase the Puget Sound Management Conference’s capacity to successfully implement the current Action Agenda. The overarching goal of the Action Agenda is to restore and protect the Puget Sound ecosystem. Work and projects that are explicitly identified in the

Action Agenda are described as Near Term Actions (NTAs). Other areas of work are recognized in the

Action Agenda as needed areas of emphasis to address pressures or threats to the health and functioning of the Puget Sound ecosystem and are described more broadly in the Action Agenda. These other areas of work are considered to be consistent with Action Agenda priorities.

Specifically, the goal of this RFPs to implement work identified in or consistent with the 2014/2015

Puget Sound Action Agenda and subsequent biennial updates of this Action Agenda that is of high priority to Puget Sound tribes. Note that on September 22, 2015, EPA issued a separate solicitation for

Action Agenda Strategic Initiative technical leads to identify, prioritize, and assess activities in, and make subawards to implement work identified in, the Puget Sound Action Agenda and its updates. See http://www2.epa.gov/puget-sound/funding-and-grants-puget-sound.

It is also an objective of this RFP to help fulfill and support EPA’s trust responsibilities to federally recognized tribes of the greater Puget Sound ecosystem. This RFP accomplishes this objective by ensuring that each federally recognized Puget Sound tribe can direct its funding under this program to the projects identified in or consistent with the Action Agenda that are of high tribal priority, as identified in tribal environmental action plans, salmon recovery plan, or other similar documents.

C. Eligible Activities This RFP is focused on supporting the functions that will enable efficient and timely implementation of high priority tribal projects identified in or consistent with the 2014/15 Puget Sound Action Agenda and subsequent updates of this Action Agenda. This includes engaging in Puget Sound Management

Conference processes and the activities associated with managing a subaward program. Applicants should describe in their proposal how they will address and/or perform the following activities:

Maintain an accurate, dynamic, and comprehensive working understanding of all federally-recognized Puget Sound tribes’ highest priority environmental concerns. This understanding is necessary to effectively design and implement a subaward program that not only implements the 2014/15 Action Agenda, but specifically ensures that Action Agenda work of high tribal priority is implemented.

Efficiently and effectively implement and manage a subaward program to implement high priority tribal projects in or consistent with the 2014/15 Puget Sound Action Agenda.

Subawards may be awarded non-competitively or competitively based on relevant criteria to http://www2.epa.gov/puget-sound/funding-and-grants-puget-sound achieve program objectives. If competitively awarded, a fair and impartial process must be used to evaluate proposals and make subawards and appropriate evaluation criteria must be used.

The subaward program should provide accountability, transparency, predictability and appropriate technical standards, and utilize federal funding efficiently by making subawards as soon as possible after federal appropriations are awarded.

Function collaboratively as a member of the Puget Sound Management Conference5 to promote coordination, leveraging, and synergy between work funded under this program with other related Management Conference activities. For example, if subawards are made for floodplain restoration efforts in a geographic area targeted for other major investment under the FY14/15

Action Agenda and subsequent updates, the recipient should encourage and promote communication and coordination between subawardee(s) and those other initiatives. The recipient should generally seek, in its role as Tribal Implementation Lead, for its program to advance overall progress on the FY14/15 Action Agenda and subsequent updates by promoting communication and coordination among projects funded under this program and other efforts.

Working with the PSP, the Management Conference, and EPA, explore and implement, if practicable, ways to synchronize, consolidate and/or streamline the Action Agenda subaward processes so that an efficient subaward funding process and a consistent funding cycle is achieved for funding local implementation of Action Agenda actions and projects.

Monitor subaward performance to ensure that the subawards are achieving the objectives of the program, expected outputs and outcomes, and other subaward requirements (e.g., see Section VIII of this RFP) efficiently and effectively. Appropriately work with subaward recipients to ensure timely and expeditious use of funds to minimize the extent of unliquidated obligations. Track progress towards meeting outputs and outcomes, utilizing the Puget Sound Fiscal Ecosystem Accountability Tracking System (FEATS) or other reporting mechanism as directed by EPA.

Working with the PSP, with the Puget Sound Management Conference boards and stakeholders, use the data and results obtained by the monitoring of subawards to adaptively manage the implementation and future updates of the Action Agenda.

Fund activities identified in the Action Agenda to refine, monitor progress toward and help achieve identified Vital Sign targets. Provide the level of technical guidance needed to ensure subaward workplans are scoped to meet targeted environmental outcomes. This includes sequencing analytical, planning and implementation activities that support implementation strategies for achieving respective prioritized targets.

Incorporate processes to guide and solicit actions that study, evaluate, model, plan, and prepare for the impacts of climate change on Puget Sound ecosystem protection and restoration activities. The selected recipient should apply their technical expertise where applicable to help sub-awardees integrate climate change adaptation into project design and implementation.

These actions will be used to help and inform the Puget Sound Partnership’s and EPA Puget Sound program work to meet the Agency-wide requirement that all NEPs conduct a broad, risk-

5 EPA states that NEP Management Conferences, in general, are “made up of diverse stakeholders including citizens, local, state, and Federal agencies, as well as with non-profit and private sector entities. Using a consensus-building approach and collaborative decision-making process, each MC works closely together to implement the CCMP. The MC ensures that the CCMP is uniquely tailored to the local environmental conditions, is based on local input, and supports local priorities” http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/nep/. For Puget Sound specifically, the Management Conference is described on p. 2, Appendix A, of the 2014/15 Puget Sound Action Agenda (http://www.psp.wa.gov/downloads/2014_action_agenda/Final%202014%20action%20agenda%20update/AppA_ Mngmnt-Conference.pdf).

http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/nep/ http://www.psp.wa.gov/downloads/2014_action_agenda/Final%202014%20action%20agenda%20update/AppA_Mngmnt-Conference.pdf http://www.psp.wa.gov/downloads/2014_action_agenda/Final%202014%20action%20agenda%20update/AppA_Mngmnt-Conference.pdf based climate change vulnerability assessment and integrate climate change considerations into their revised or updated CCMPs by FY2020.

D. EPA’s Strategic Plan Linkages, Environmental Results, and Logic

Models Pursuant to Section 6a of EPA Order 5700.7, “Environmental Results under EPA Assistance Agreements,”

EPA must link proposed assistance agreements to EPA’s strategic goals (see EPA Order 5700.7, http://www.epa.gov/ogd/grants/award/5700.7.pdf). EPA also requires that applicants and recipients adequately describe environmental outputs, environmental outcomes and performance measurements to be achieved under assistance agreements. These linkages, outputs, outcomes and performance measures are described below:

1. Region 10 FY15-18 Strategic Plan Linkages The Region 10 FY15-18 Strategic Plan identifies “Engaging with Partners on Puget Sound National

Estuary Program Decisions” as Regional Objective (RO) 3.2.

EPA Region 10’s Puget Sound Program has partnered with Puget Sound tribes and tribal consortia, state agencies, local government entities, federal agencies, boards and panels of the Puget Sound National

Estuary Program (NEP) Management Conference, and other interested parties to modify the funding model EPA uses to distribute appropriated Puget Sound recovery funds to the Puget Sound

Management Conference. The new funding model, through which Puget Sound funds will be allocated beginning in FY16, stresses the importance of supporting all partners and ensuring that the Puget Sound

Action Agenda is the primary strategic pathway to recovery. The proposed associated decision-making processes will also strengthen the roles of Treaty Tribes and the Puget Sound Management Conference in establishing funding priorities and allocating funds. As the model is adopted and successfully implemented, by FY18 we will achieve stronger agreement between all partners on Puget Sound priorities, a corresponding alignment in funding decisions, and focused work to achieve better, and more measurable environmental results.

Specific commitments under RO 3.2 include to “[a]ccelerate achievement of desired environmental outcomes such as the restoration of nearshore and upstream riparian salmon habitat areas, protecting and improving water quality for more shellfish growing areas, and work to increase restoration of eelgrass (a critical marine habitat feature).”

Identifying and establishing a TIL is a central component in Region 10’s approach to achieving these commitments and fulfilling RO 3.2.

2. Agency Strategic Plan Linkages The assistance agreement to be awarded under this RFP is linked to EPA’s Strategic Plan Goal 2:

Protecting America’s Waters: Objective 2 – ‘Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems.’

The priority of this assistance agreement is to ensure successful implementation of the Puget Sound

Action Agenda as the approved CCMP under NEP with particular focus on projects of high priority to

Puget Sound tribes. The assistance agreement is specifically linked to the Strategic Plan Sub-objective for Puget Sound, as the assistance agreement will direct tribal work to protect, restore, and sustain the quality of rivers, lakes, streams, and wetlands on a watershed basis, and sustainably manage and protect coastal and ocean resources and ecosystems.

3. Environmental Results: Outputs, Outcomes, and Performance Measures The term “output” means an environmental activity, effort, and/or associated work product related to an environmental goal and objective that will be produced or provided over a period of time or by a specified date. Outputs may be quantitative or qualitative but must be measurable during an assistance agreement funding period. Examples of expected outputs from the activities and project(s) to be funded under this announcement may include, but are not limited to, the following examples:

A. Outputs that could be produced by the Tribal Implementation Lead include:

Provide ongoing guidance and support to eligible subrecipients on the content, priorities, and activities of the 2014/15 Action Agenda and subsequent revisions and updates to the Action Agenda, to ensure that proposed subaward projects of high tribal priority are in or fully consistent with the Action Agenda

Provide funding for projects that seek to complete Near Term Actions identified in current CCMP/ Action Agenda. The number of projects funded would be reported as a quantifiable output.

Provide subaward monitoring and performance reports and analysis to inform annual or biennial adaptive management processes ; collaborate with PSP to implement adaptive management

Manage the EPA Puget Sound assistance agreement to meet all required terms and conditions, including quality assurance, and financial reporting and project performance monitoring.

B. Outputs that could be generated by subawards awarded by the Tribal Implementation Lead include :

Programs or projects to target riparian protection and restoration

Incentive programs to achieve net reduction in shoreline armoring

Coordinated investment strategies developed/ implemented to maximize cross agency effectiveness for habitat restoration and protection

Invasive species control programs to preserve / restore native vegetation in important habitat areas

Number of volunteer stewards who are trained in oil spill response. The number of volunteers would be reported as a quantifiable output.

Public outreach and education activities conducted to help reduce unregulated pathogen pollution

Inspection and/or enforcement activities for pathogen pollution control

Climate change adaptation and resiliency planning or project construction to address stormwater impacts

Toxics reduction programs to reduce pollutant loading of stormwater runoff

Low impact development, LID, project design and construction.

Workshops and trainings held for Puget Sound jurisdictions to improve stormwater management practices

Progress reports and a final report will also be a required output, as specified in Section VI (C) of this announcement, “Reporting Requirements.”

The term “outcome” means the result, effect or consequence that will occur from carrying out an environmental program or activity that is related to an environmental or programmatic goal or objective. Outcomes may be qualitative and environmental, behavioral, health-related, or programmatic in nature, but must also be quantitative. They may not necessarily be entirely achievable within an assistance agreement funding period. Activities and projects to be funded under this announcement are expected to produce programmatic and /or environmental outcomes including but not limited to:

Reduction in the number of water bodies on Washington’s Impaired Waters list

Stormwater management programs established and functioning in majority of priority Puget Sound watersheds

Measurable reduction of stormwater pollutants in marine water quality monitoring

Measurable reduction of toxicity levels in marine species

Net increase in acres of native riparian vegetation

Increased forested upland acreage in conservation status

Improved ecosystem function observed in priority habitat areas

Net increases of harvestable shellfish bed acreage

Pollution Identification and Correction programs functioning in all Puget Sound counties, enabling better response to new pollution source detection

Fewer conditional closures of shellfish beds impacted by pathogen or nutrient runoff

Existing commercial, tribal, and recreational shellfish harvest areas are protected and preserved, resulting in improved public health

The applicant should also develop performance measures they expect to achieve through the proposed activities and describe them in their proposal. These performance measures will help gather insights and will be the mechanism to track progress concerning successful process and output and outcome strategies and will provide the basis for developing lessons to inform future recipients. It is expected that the description of performance measures will include defined benchmark or change in status, either in programmatic function or environmental condition, and that the performance measures be time constrained and/or quantifiable such as the following:

Performance Measure Example 1 (for Tribal Implementation Lead): Subaward recipients complete projects within the stated timeframe and unliquidated obligations are minimized.

Performance Measure Example 2 (for subawards managed by TIL): Number of feet of shoreline armoring removed.

The following are questions to consider when developing output and outcome measures of quantitative and qualitative results:

What measurable short term and longer term results will the project achieve?

How will progress in achieving the expected results (including outputs and outcomes) be measured, and how will the planned approach use resources effectively and efficiently?

4. Logic Models To ensure your application supports implementation of both the Puget Sound Action Agenda and EPA’s national strategic plan objectives, we recommend that you include a logic model with your application.

A logic model summarizes the major elements of your project, and connects strategic objectives to your proposed resources, activities, outputs, and outcomes.

Logic models and results chains are tools to be used to build better projects and programs. Accordingly, logic models come in many forms and shapes, from simple storylines that link various actions into strategies and work programs to more complex system diagrams. For a straight forward implementation project, the logic model can be as simple as a clearly documented history and basis for a particular project in a particular place to achieve a particular result. For a project with many tasks, work processes, timelines and partners, a more detailed approach may be more helpful.

With whatever logic model format you choose, please explain how the proposed work addresses the most significant challenges of the area of emphasis. We encourage you to identify ecosystem endpoints or indicators (the outcomes) that would be affected or supported by the products and information (the outputs) from the proposed scope of work. See Appendix A for information on logic models, results chains, and additional information sources.

II. Award Information

A. Number and Amount of Awards EPA anticipates awarding one cooperative agreement from this RFP, subject to the availability of funds, the quality of proposals received, and other applicable considerations. Funding for the award is expected to be provided incrementally over a five-year period with an initial amount of approximately

$3,000,000 to $4,000,000 for the first year and subsequent incremental funding through year five.

Incremental funding after the initial award is subject to future appropriations, satisfactory performance of work, and other applicable considerations. The total estimated funding for this competitive opportunity is up to approximately $25,000,000 for the five year period.

B. Start Date and Length of Project Period The successful applicant should plan for projects to begin on or after May 1, 2016. EPA will accept proposals for a five year funding period. The proposal must clearly demonstrate how the project will be sustained for the time frame proposed.

C. Funding Type The successful applicant will be issued a cooperative agreement. A cooperative agreement is an assistance agreement that is used when there is substantial federal involvement with the recipient during the performance of an activity or project. EPA will negotiate the precise terms and conditions of

“substantial involvement” as part of the award process. Federal involvement may include close monitoring of the recipient’s performance; collaboration during the performance of the scope of work;

in accordance with 2 CFR 200.317 and 2 CFR 200.318, as appropriate, review of proposed procurements;

reviewing qualifications of key personnel; and/or review and comment on the content of printed or electronic publications prepared. EPA does not have the authority to select employees or contractors employed by the recipient. The final decision on the content of reports rests with the recipient.

In addition, under the award to be made under this RFP, EPA involvement may include: (1) negotiating the initial Scope of Work for the cooperative agreement and also annual amendments when incremental funding is applied for. EPA may re-negotiate annual work plans and budgets so long as the revised workplans and budget are consistent with the scope of work of the agreement and the solicitation and

EPA’s annual federal budget; (2) monitor the project management and execution throughout the assistance agreement’s project and budget period; (3) provide technical assistance and coordination as requested or needed by the recipient; and (4) review and approve technical deliverables.

D. Other Award Provisions EPA reserves the right to reject all proposals and make no award under this announcement or to a make a smaller award than expected. In addition, EPA reserves the right to make additional awards under this announcement, consistent with Agency policy and guidance, if additional funding becomes available after the original selections are made. Any additional selections for awards will be made no later than 6 months after the original selection decisions.

In appropriate circumstances, EPA reserves the right to partially fund proposals by funding discrete portions or phases of proposed projects. If EPA decides to partially fund a proposal, it will do so in a manner that does not prejudice any applicants or affect the basis upon which the proposal was evaluated and selected for award, and therefore maintains the integrity of the competition and selection process.

III. Eligibility Information

A. Eligible Applicants – See CFDA 66.121 All federally recognized Indian Tribes located within the greater Puget Sound basin and any consortium of these eligible Tribes are eligible to apply. The greater Puget Sound basin is defined as all watersheds draining to the U.S. waters of Puget Sound, southern Georgia Basin, and the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

An eligible Intertribal consortium is one that demonstrates that: 1) a majority of its members meet the eligibility requirements for this program; 2) all members that meet the eligibility requirements authorize the consortium to apply for and receive the grant; and 3) only members that meet the eligibility requirements will benefit directly from the grant project and the consortium agrees to a grant condition to that effect.

An Intertribal consortium must have adequate documentation of the existence of the partnership and the authorization of the member Tribes to apply for and receive assistance. Documentation that demonstrates the existence of the partnership of Indian Tribal governments may consist of Tribal

Council resolutions, Intertribal consortia resolutions in conjunction with a Tribal Council resolution from each member Tribe, or other written certification from a duly authorized representative of each Tribal government that clearly demonstrates that a partnership of Indian Tribal governments exists. An

Intertribal consortium resolution is not adequate documentation of the member Tribes’ authorization of the consortium unless it includes a written certification from a duly authorized representative of each

Tribal government.

Coalitions

Groups of two or more eligible applicants may choose to form a coalition and submit a single application under this RFP. However, one entity must be responsible for the Cooperative Agreement. Coalitions must identify which eligible organization will be the recipient of the Cooperative Agreement, and which eligible organization(s) will be subawardees of the recipient.

Subawards and subgrants must be consistent with the definition of that term in 2 CFR Part 200. The recipient must administer the cooperative agreement, will be accountable to the EPA for proper expenditure of the funds and reporting, and will be the point of contact for the coalition. As provided in

2 CFR Part 200, subrecipients or subgrantees are accountable to the recipient or grantee for proper use of EPA funding.

Coalitions may not include for-profit organizations that will provide services or products to the successful applicant. For-profit organizations are not eligible for subawards. For-profit organizations are eligible to receive contracts. Any contracts for services or products funded with EPA financial assistance must be awarded under the competitive procurement procedures of 2 CFR Part 200. The regulations also contain limitations on consultant compensation. Please see EPA’s definition of consultants in

Section 2 CFR Part 200, as applicable. For additional information, please review the following Federal

Register announcement for the Environmental Protection Agency: FRL–7644–5, “Interpretation of

Regulations Related to Payments to Consultants under Grants.”

B. Non-Federal Match Requirement The Clean Water Act, at §320(g)(3)(a)(II), provides that the Federal share of a grant under this program for a fiscal year shall not exceed 50% of the aggregate costs of implementing the project. For this RFP, this means that applicants must be able to show in their proposals that they will be able to provide and/or coordinate match for this project such that they or other members of the Management

Conference will spend an equal amount of nonfederal funds on implementing these projects during the budget period. Applicants should identify how they plan to coordinate match, and/or the source (s) of the anticipated non-federal match together with the nature of the projects funded with the non-federal match. If applicable, proposals must show that the projects providing the nonfederal match are

“committed” and that they have not been used to provide nonfederal match for any other federal financial assistance. The match can come from expenditures to implement the Action Agenda/CCMP in the aggregate.

Forms of Match: The match requirement may be met in the form of cash or in-kind contributions. In-kind contributions include volunteer or donated time, equipment, expertise, salaries, other verifiable costs, etc. and are subject to the regulations governing matching fund requirements at 2 CFR Part 200.

The match must be for allowable project costs. Matching funds are considered assistance agreement funds and are included in the total award amount and should be used for the reasonable and necessary expenses of carrying out the work plan. All assistance agreement funds are subject to federal audit. Any restrictions on the use of assistance agreement funds (examples of restrictions are outlined in Section

III.D of this announcement) also apply to the use of matching funds. Other Federal assistance agreements may not be used as match without specific statutory authority. If matching requirements for incremental funding awarded under this RFP change as a result of future legislation on restoration of

Puget Sound or otherwise, EPA will make appropriate adjustments to match requirements in the terms and conditions of the cooperative agreements.

C. Threshold Eligibility Criteria Proposals must meet the threshold eligibility criteria listed below by the time of a proposal’s submission or they will be eliminated from consideration for funding. Only proposals meeting all of the criteria will be evaluated against the ranking factors in Section V.A. Applicants whose proposals are deemed ineligible as a result of the threshold review will be notified within 15 calendar days of the ineligibility determination.

1. Proposals must substantially comply with the proposal submission instructions and requirements set forth in Section IV of this announcement or else they will be rejected.

However, where a page limit is expressed in Section IV with respect to the narrative proposal, pages in excess of the page limitation will not be reviewed.

2. Initial proposals must be submitted through Grants.gov as stated in Section IV of this announcement (except in the limited circumstances where another mode of submission is specifically allowed for as explained in Section IV) on or before the proposal submission deadline published in Section IV of this announcement. Applicants are responsible for following the submission instructions in Section IV of this announcement to ensure that their proposal is timely submitted.

3. Proposals submitted after the submission deadline will be considered late and deemed ineligible without further consideration unless the applicant can clearly demonstrate that it was late due to EPA mishandling or because of technical problems associated with Grants.gov or relevant SAM.gov issues. An applicant’s failure to timely submit their proposal through Grants.gov because they did not timely or properly register in SAM.gov or Grants.gov will not be considered an acceptable reason to consider a late submission. Applicants should confirm receipt of their proposal with the EPA Puget Sound Program contact, Melissa Whitaker, at Whitaker.Melissa@epa.gov as soon as possible after the submission deadline. Failure to do so may result in your proposal not being reviewed.

4. Applicants must meet the eligibility requirements as described in Section III. A above.

5. Applicants must demonstrate how they will meet the match requirements as described in

Section III.B above.

6. Proposals with international work plan elements must demonstrate that they directly and primarily benefit U.S. waters, resources, or policy interests to restore and protect the greater Puget Sound ecosystem.

7. Applicants must demonstrate that their subaward program will provide the opportunity for all 19 Federally recognized Indian Tribes located within the greater Puget Sound basin, and any authorized consortium of these eligible Tribes, to obtain funding.

D. Funding Restrictions Actions required under NPDES Phase l and ll stormwater permits existing at the time of this announcement will generally not be funded. Applicants proposing stormwater-related activities in

Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) areas must include a statement certifying that the work proposed for funding is either not required under a current stormwater discharge permit or it strategically supports Puget Sound targets and environmental outcomes that would otherwise not accrue. EPA may re-evaluate this restriction as future permit changes are made.

Award funds may not be used for matching funds for other federal assistance agreements, lobbying or intervention in federal regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings. Award funding must be authorized by the statutory authority (e.g. Section 320(g) of the Clean Water Act) and may not be used to sue the federal government or any other government entity. In accordance with applicable law, regulation, and policy, any recipient of funding must agree to comply with restrictions on using assistance funds for unauthorized lobbying, fund-raising, or political activities (i.e., lobbying members of Congress or lobbying for other federal grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts). EPA reserves the right to make final decisions regarding actions or costs incurred that are contrary or damaging to the intent and http://www.grants.gov/ http://www.grants.gov/ http://www.sam.gov/ http://www.grants.gov/ http://www.sam.gov/ mailto:Whitaker.Melissa@epa.gov purposes of the Puget Sound National Estuary program (NEP), the Puget Sound Action Agenda and

Management Conference, for which award funds may not be used.

All costs incurred under this program must be allowable under 2 CFR 200, Subpart E.

If an application is submitted that includes any ineligible activities, that portion of the application will be ineligible for funding and may, depending on the extent to which it affects the application, render the entire application ineligible.

IV. Proposal and Submission Information

A. Requirements to Submit Through “Grants.gov” and Limited

Exception Procedures Applicants must apply electronically, except as noted below, through Grants.gov under this funding opportunity based on the Grants.gov instructions in this announcement and Appendix B. If an applicant does not have the technical capacity to apply electronically through Grants.gov because of limited or no internet access that prevents them from being able to upload the required proposal materials to

Grants.gov, the applicant must contact OGDWaivers@epa.gov or the address listed below in writing

(e.g., by hard copy or email) at least 15 calendar days prior to the submission deadline under this announcement to request approval to submit their proposal materials through an alternate method.

Mailing Address:

OGD Waivers C/o Barbara Perkins USEPA Headquarters William Jefferson Clinton Building 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N. W.

Mail Code: 3903R Washington, DC 20460

Courier Address:

OGD Waivers C/o Barbara Perkins Ronald Reagan Building 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Room # 51267 Washington, DC 20004

Applicant must include the following information in their requests:

Funding Opportunity Number (FON)

Organization Name and DUNS

Organization’s Contact Information (email address and phone number)

Explanation of how they lack the technical capability to apply electronically through Grants.gov because of 1) limited internet access or 2) no internet access which prevents them from being able to upload the required application materials…