rfp_18_02_cbp_geospatial_analysis_2_13_2018.pdf

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

TITLE: Chesapeake Bay Program Office Fiscal Year 2018 Request for Proposals for

Geospatial Analysis Support for Implementation of the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement’s Goals and Outcomes

ANNOUNCEMENT TYPE: Request for Proposals (RFP)

RFP NUMBER: EPA-R3-CBP-18-02

CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE (CFDA) NUMBER: 66.466

IMPORTANT DATES

02/13/2018 Issuance of RFP 04/16/2018 Proposal Submission Deadline (see Section IV for more information) 05/31/2018 Approximate date for EPA to notify applicants of results 06/25/2018 Approximate date for applicant to submit federal cooperative agreement application 08/09/2018 Approximate date of award

EPA will consider all proposals that are submitted via Grants.gov on or before 11:59 pm EST on April 16, 2018. Any proposals submitted after the due date and time will not be considered for funding. No proposals will be accepted by facsimile or e-mail. EPA will only accept proposals submitted via Grants.gov, except in limited circumstances where applicants have no or very limited Internet access (see section IV.).

SUMMARY

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Chesapeake Bay Program Office (CBPO) is announcing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for applicants to provide the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) partners with a proposal for providing geospatial analysis support for the CBP partnership in support of the targeted implementation of actions in support of reaching the goals and outcomes of the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement. Proposals will also provide for technical support for of the implementation of the jurisdictions’ Phase III Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs) and implementation of the most cost-effective, efficient, and targeted nutrient and sediment reduction actions for the protection and restoration of the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed. CBP partners include federal agencies, seven watershed jurisdictions, and many non-federal organizations; however, work funded under this RFP will support the seven watershed jurisdictions and other non-federal partners. The seven watershed jurisdictions are Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia.

FUNDING/AWARDS: This RFP will cover the project period up to and including six years from an expected start date of August 09, 2018. EPA CBPO plans to award from one to four cooperative agreements under this RFP.

The total estimated funding for six years is approximately $540,000 to $3,900,000 per activity with an estimated $90,000 to $650,000 available for the first year and each additional year per activity. However, it should be noted that these ranges are a broad representation of all the activities combined, and specific funding ranges may vary by activity as noted in this RFP.

Therefore, applicants should refer to each specific activity for the actual funding amount when developing its proposal(s). There is no guarantee of funding throughout this period or beyond.

Applicants may apply for any or all of the four activities. Applicants may apply for more than one of the activities described in Section I.B but can only submit one application per activity.

Each application must be separately submitted. Each application must address only one activity.

If an applicant submits more than one application per activity, EPA will contact the applicant to determine which one to review.

FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description II. Award Information III. Eligibility Information IV. Proposal and Submission Information V. Proposal Review Information VI. Award Administration Information VII. Agency Contacts VIII. Other Information (Appendices)

I: FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION

A. Background

1. About the Chesapeake Bay Program The Chesapeake Bay is North America's largest and most biologically diverse estuary. A resource of extraordinary productivity, it is worthy of the highest levels of protection and restoration. Authorized by Section 117 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Section 1267, the Chesapeake Bay Program is responsible for supporting the Chesapeake Executive Council through a number of actions, including the coordination of federal, state, and local efforts to restore and protect living resources and water quality of the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed.

Section 117 also authorizes EPA to provide assistance grants to support the goals of the program.

The Chesapeake Bay Program is a unique regional partnership that has led and directed the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay since 1983. The CBP partners include the states of Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia; the District of Columbia; the Chesapeake Bay Commission, a tri-state legislative body; EPA, representing the federal government; and participating citizen, local government, and scientific and technical advisory groups.

The Chesapeake Bay Program partnership (the Partnership) is guided at the direction of the Chesapeake Executive Council (Executive Council), which, through its leadership, establishes the policy direction for the restoration and protection of the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed and exerts its leadership to rally public support for Chesapeake Bay and watershed restoration and protection and signs directives, agreements, and amendments that set goals and guide policy for Chesapeake Bay and watershed restoration and protection.

The Principals' Staff Committee acts as the senior policy advisors to the Executive Council, accepting items for their consideration and approval and setting agendas for Executive Council meetings. The Principals' Staff Committee also provides policy and program direction to the Management Board.

The Management Board provides strategic planning, priority setting, and operational guidance through implementation of a comprehensive, coordinated, accountable implementation strategy for the Chesapeake Bay Program. It directs and coordinates all of the Goal Implementation Teams (GITs) and their respective workgroups.

The membership of the GITs and the Scientific, Technical Assessment and Reporting Team include federal and non-federal experts from throughout the watershed. Thus, academic experts, advocacy organizations, and others become active members of the broad Chesapeake Bay and watershed restoration and protection partnership.

Pursuant to Clean Water Act Section 117(b)(2), 33 U.S.C. Section 1267 (b)(2), the Chesapeake Bay Program Office is the office within EPA charged with providing support to the Executive Council in the restoration and protection of the Chesapeake Bay. The Chesapeake Bay Program Office and Chesapeake Bay Program, both mentioned above, are two distinct entities.

2. 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement and Executive Order 13508 On June 16, 2014, the Chesapeake Executive Council, the Chesapeake Bay Program’s governing body signed a new voluntary Chesapeake Bay agreement (referred to as Chesapeake Bay

Watershed Agreement throughout this RFP) that will guide the CBP partnership’s work into the future. For the first time, Delaware, New York, and West Virginia signed the agreement as full CBP partners in the overall effort. This agreement is one of the most comprehensive restoration plans developed for the Chesapeake Bay region, providing greater transparency and accountability of all CBP partners. With 10 interrelated goals and 31 outcomes, this watershed-wide accord advances the restoration, conservation, and protection of all the lands and waters within the 64,000-square-mile watershed by promoting sound land use, environmental literacy, stewardship, and a diversity of engaged citizens. Additionally, the goals and outcomes aim to better protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay's living resources, water quality, and vital habitats.

The Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement also recognizes the unique and vital role local governments play and how they are essential to the restoration and protection of the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed.

The cooperative agreement(s) to be awarded under this announcement will help support all of the goals in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Agreement and further the following principles as stated in the Agreement: operate with transparency in program decisions, policies, actions and reporting to strengthen public confidence in our efforts, adaptively manage at all levels of the partnership to foster continuous improvement, and engage citizens to increase the number and diversity of people who support and carry out the conservation, protection and restoration activities necessary to achieve the goals and outcomes of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement.

3. The Chesapeake Bay TMDL, WIPs, and the Midpoint Assessment

The EPA has established the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), a historic and comprehensive “pollution diet” with rigorous accountability measures to initiate sweeping actions to restore clean water to the Chesapeake Bay and the watershed’s streams, creeks and rivers.

The Chesapeake Bay TMDL – the largest ever developed by EPA – identifies the necessary pollution reductions of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment across Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia and sets pollution limits necessary to meet applicable state water quality standards in Chesapeake Bay, its tidal tributaries and embayments. These pollution limits were further divided by jurisdiction and major river basin based on state-of-the-art modeling tools, extensive monitoring data, peer-reviewed science and close interaction with jurisdictional partners.

Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs) are plans for how each of the seven Chesapeake Bay watershed jurisdictions (jurisdictions), in partnership with federal and local governments, will achieve their respective Chesapeake Bay TMDL allocations and planning targets. The Phase I WIPs were developed in 2010 by the jurisdictions to inform the 2010 Chesapeake Bay TMDL waste load and load allocations. The Phase II WIPs were developed in 2012 by the jurisdictions to meet nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment planning targets based on updated information generated through CBP Partnership’s Phase 5.3.2 Chesapeake Bay watershed model. The goal of the Chesapeake Bay TMDL and supporting jurisdictional WIP process is to implement by 2025 all nutrient and sediment pollutant load reduction and prevention measures needed to fully restore water quality in Chesapeake Bay and its tidal rivers.

EPA expects practices in place by 2017 to meet 60 percent of the necessary reductions, and the partnership is conducting a Chesapeake Bay TMDL Midpoint Assessment to review progress and adjust nutrient and sediment goals if necessary. The CBP Partnership is currently updating and reviewing the latest science, data, models, and decision support tools to be used in estimating progress in nutrient and sediment pollutant load reductions. Phase III WIPs will be developed by jurisdictions based on a midpoint assessment of progress and new information provided by the Phase 6 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model and related updates of the Chesapeake Bay Airshed Models and the Chesapeake Water Quality and Sediment Transport Model. The Phase III WIPs will provide information on actions the seven watershed jurisdictions intend to implement between 2018 and 2025 to meet their respective Chesapeake Bay TMDL goals.

4. Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership’s Environmental Models

Models of the Chesapeake Bay’s airshed, watershed, estuary, and living resources have been developed by the partners and linked together over the past 30 years. The CBP partnership’s suite of models assists in understanding the important processes affecting the health of the watershed and the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. These modeling tools provide the Chesapeake Bay watershed state and local jurisdictions with an understanding of the effect of various control strategies on pollutant levels and the level of nutrient and sediment load reductions needed to restore the Chesapeake Bay and achieve the states’ water quality standards for dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll a, underwater bay grasses and water clarity. By quantifying the management actions necessary to restore Chesapeake Bay habitats and the living resources dependent on those habitats, these integrated CBP partnership models provide guidance to environmental managers and citizens on where the most cost-effective reductions can be made so that controls are equitable and broadly supported.

Development and application of the next generation of Chesapeake Bay models will require an unprecedented level of direct involvement of a wide array of non-federal CBP partners and stakeholders in each step of the planning, development, calibration, verification, management application, and continued refinement/enhancement. Given that Bay restoration decision-making occurs at a very local scale as a result of the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, the jurisdictions’ WIPs , and the greatly expanded level of accountability, the next generation of the partnership’s Chesapeake Bay models must reflect these shifts in scale and accountability. These models must be developed for direct application by state and local jurisdictional partners, academic partners, and stakeholders alike, feeding directly into their respective and unique decision-making processes and supporting adaptive management at all scales.

Through the application of airshed, watershed, estuarine, and living resource modeling activities, the CBP’s state and local jurisdictional partners gain access to information that is used directly in decision-making for Chesapeake Bay environmental restoration efforts. Chesapeake Bay environmental models are developed, calibrated, verified, and applied through an expanding cooperative network of state, federal, regional and local agencies, non-governmental organizations, and academic institutional partners. These partnership models help set the pace and direction of Chesapeake Bay restoration by providing information on water quality and biological resource responses to different management actions.

5. Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership’s Monitoring Networks

Undergoing adaptive changes over the past three decades as the partnership’s management needs and requests have significantly evolved over time, the Chesapeake Bay tidal monitoring network now includes: tidal water quality monitoring for 26 parameters at over 150 stations distributed over the 92 Chesapeake Bay tidal segments across Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia; shallow-water monitoring addressing a select set of segments on a rotational basis; benthic infaunal community monitoring at fixed and random stations across the tidal waters; annual aerial and ground surveys of underwater Bay grasses; decadal records of phytoplankton and zooplankton monitoring; and fisheries independent population monitoring programs and surveys.

Each component of the tidal monitoring network has been designed to support the decision making of the four Bay jurisdictions’ tidal water Clean Water Act Section 303(d) listing determinations,-- addressing dissolved oxygen, water clarity, underwater bay grasses, and chlorophyll a criteria attainment assessments and benthic infaunal community-based impairment decisions. The Chesapeake Bay tidal monitoring network is funded, operated, and maintained through a longstanding state-federal-university partnership that produced the fundamental monitoring data supporting Chesapeake Bay TMDL development. This data is also utilized in public reporting on the health of Chesapeake Bay, its tidal tributaries and embayments, and supporting ecosystem; assessment of achieving the Chesapeake Bay jurisdictions’ Chesapeake Bay water quality standards regulations; evaluation of the effectiveness of actions to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment pollution loadings from the surrounding watershed;

developing, calibrating, verifying and applying models; and generating and reporting water quality and living resource indicators.

The Chesapeake Bay watershed monitoring network is a network of 115 streamflow gauges and water-quality sampling sites operated across the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The network is an essential component to reporting, tracking, and modeling stream flow as well as nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment concentrations and loads across the Chesapeake Bay watershed as it provides the only consistent, coordinated monitoring effort across all seven Chesapeake Bay watershed jurisdictions.

The Chesapeake Bay watershed monitoring network is designed to measure the discharge of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment loads with routine samples collected monthly with additional storm-event samples to obtain a range of discharges and loadings. The seven jurisdictions, the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) all use the same set of standardized CBP protocols that are based on USGS sampling methods and EPA-approved analytical methods.

6. Chesapeake Bay Watershed-wide Land Cover Data

Accurate land use and land cover information is one of the most important spatial datasets needed for environmental management in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Used for everything from ecological habitat mapping to tracking development trends, land use and land cover data play a central part of the CBP partnership’s modeling and management efforts. Existing land use and land cover datasets, such as the National Land Cover Dataset, have proven extremely useful in identifying priority watersheds in need of conservation and restoration. However, these data often lack the resolution needed to track fine-scale trends in land conversion or make field-scale decisions about where to focus land conservation actions, habitat restoration projects, or pollutant reducing efforts to maximize water quality benefits while protecting critical habitats.

To help provide the CBP federal, state, and local partners with the level of detailed land cover data needed, the Partnership supported a basinwide effort to acquire, interpret and map high resolution land cover across the entire Chesapeake Bay watershed. The result was the acquisition of a consistent high resolution, extremely accurate land cover dataset for all of the counties that comprise the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Using publicly available aerial imagery from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Agriculture Imagery Program, and LiDAR elevation data from states and the US. Geological Survey, a scalable and replicable methodology was used to generate land classification datasets with a resolution of 1 meter and an overall accuracy that was close to 95 percent. The aerial imagery was segmented and classified into eight classes.

B. Scope of Work

This RFP is soliciting cost-effective proposals from eligible applicants to provide technical analysis and programmatic evaluation support of non-federal agencies and organizations that are members of the CBP partnership. While the CBP partnership is comprised of federal and non-federal agencies and organizations, the activities funded under this RFP shall only support the non-federal partners. The recipient(s) of the cooperative agreement(s) awarded under this RFP may work directly with federal agencies, but the nature and principal purpose of that work will result only in direct benefit to the non-federal agencies, organizations, partners, and the general public. The non-federal partners of the CBP will provide programmatic direction to the cooperative agreement recipient(s) through the CBP partnership’s Water Quality, Habitat and Stewardship Goal Implementation Teams and their respective workgroups, the CBP partnership’s Scientific, Technical, Assessment and Reporting Team and its workgroups, and the CBP partnership’s Management Board.

The U.S. EPA CBPO plans to award from one to four cooperative agreements under this RFP to an organization or organizations oriented towards providing highly specialized scientific, technical, and programmatic support. The selected organization or organizations will support the CBP’s mission of taking actions necessary to achieve the goals and outcomes of the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement. This mission also includes:

• Building the capacity for targeting implementation of the most cost-effective and efficient pollution reduction practices and technologies, working directly with federal, state, regional, and local governmental and non-governmental implementation efforts;

• Building the capacity for targeting implementation of the most cost-effective and efficient habitat restoration and land conservation practices and approaches working directly with federal, state, regional, and local governmental and non-governmental implementation efforts;

• Enhancing the capabilities of state, local and non-profit partners to track, verify and report on practices providing nutrient and sediment pollutant load reductions as well as other benefits for estuarine and watershed restoration; and

• Expanding the development, acquisition, maintenance, analysis, interpretation, and dissemination of geospatial data and information important to the on-the-ground implementation actions being taken by CBP partners.

The proposing organization should be oriented towards supporting the collaborative enhancement of the capacity of regional, state and local agencies and organizations to implement practices, restore habitats and conserve lands and working within the partnership-oriented, implementation-focused structure of the CBP. The above areas of emphasis need not be the sole missions of the proposing organization.

The total estimated funding for six years is approximately $540,000 to $3,900,000 per activity with an estimated $90,000 to $650,000 available for the first year and each additional year per activity. EPA makes no commitment of annual funding amounts for any fiscal year(s), as funds may be limited based on funding availability, satisfactory performance, Agency priorities, and other applicable considerations.

If your organization has an interest in this project, has the skills to accomplish the activities, and is eligible to receive a federal assistance agreement as described in Section III of this announcement, we encourage you to submit a proposal(s). Each eligible proposal will be evaluated using the criteria described in Section V. The activities are multi-year projects, so the proposal should have a work plan, budget, and budget detail for the first and all subsequent years.

For a proposal to be considered eligible for funding, substantive project-related work included in the proposal must take place within the Chesapeake Bay watershed, which includes portions of Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia, and all of the District of Columbia. The activities identified below are covered under this announcement.

Applicants may apply for more than one of the activities described in Section I.B but can only submit one application per activity. Each application must be separately submitted. Each application must address only one activity. If an applicant submits more than one application per activity, then EPA will contact the applicant to determine which one to review.

Each application must address each item identified under each activity.

Activity 1: Long-term Land Cover/Land Use Monitoring Program Development and Implementation Estimated Funding: $350,000-650,000 per year

Updating the Phase 6 High-resolution Land Cover and Land Use Datasets Remapping the Chesapeake Bay watershed’s high-resolution land cover data will require a multi-year effort, and will include up-front investments in long-term, monitoring-plan development and project preparation through data dissemination and public outreach. Year 1 should be focused on addressing the recommendations in Lessons Learned from the Chesapeake Bay

Program Partnership’s High-Resolution Land Cover Classification Project report, setting the specifications for both the land cover and land use products, conducting outreach to promote the project, acquiring ancillary data, etc. Years 2-3 should focus on imagery acquisition and data preparation with continued outreach to counties and states. Years 3-4 should include production, review, and quality assurance/quality control of both land cover and land use data. Years 5-6 should include additional outreach via webinars, workshops, and email updates, as well as planning for subsequent future land cover/use updates.

Watershed-wide Stakeholder Outreach and Local Data Collection Another essential component of CBP’s mapping efforts will include a prioritization of outreach to local and state governments before, during, and after land cover and land use mapping. This will allow stakeholders to be more engaged throughout the data creation process, cultivate a network of users who are invested in the resultant products, and provide time for collecting ancillary data and integrating feedback into the final product. Ancillary data will include those data needed to improve the land cover/use classification and forecasting land use change, e.g., local land use, sewer service areas, parcels, and zoning. More recommendations can be found in Lessons Learned from the Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership’s High-Resolution Land Cover

Classification Project report. This work should also leverage and expand the extensive independent reviews, partnership reviews, feedback and communication infrastructure that was sought throughout the entire process for development of the Partnership’s Phase 6 land cover and land use data sets.

Change Detection and Landscape Monitoring Building upon significant research and funding invested in understanding the various modeling possibilities for detecting landscape changes, the Partnership is seeking the creation of a faster, less labor-intensive, and more efficient monitoring workflow that would identify hotspots where land cover change has occurred and flag them for more time-intensive land cover updates that would augment the Chesapeake Bay High-resolution Land Cover Dataset. In this way, the land cover could be updated on an interim basis every one to two years, between the wall-to-wall classification high-resolution change detection and land cover mapping. The Partnership seeks insights into the use of satellite imagery at the 4-10-meter and 30-meter resolution as well as higher-resolution imagery or Lidar data to evaluate change at a level of precision relevant to county and small-watershed-scale decisions. Such techniques can be used to create spatially- and temporally-accurate information that will improve capacity to monitor landscape changes.

Efforts should be invested in understanding the role of alternative approaches to change detection and landscape monitoring, as well as in the identification of reliable accuracy-assessment methodologies, plans for setting a refresh rate for data products, and the selection of the best source data for change detection and mapping.

Continued Innovation in Delivery of Land Cover/Land Use Data and Change Detection The Partnership is seeking continued work towards automating the remote sensing portion of land cover data production and change detection recognizing that manual corrections will still need to be applied to the automated output. The CBP is seeking workflows that could be made less expensive or time-consuming through computational advances and streamlining. From creating the base land cover classification product to streamlining the further watershed-wide land use mapping work, topics to investigate could include the number of classes that automation processes can accurately map, the ability to detect landscape changes of different types, the possibility of automated land cover updates, and manual correction workflows that are more efficient and cost-effective.

Activity 2: Hydrology Mapping Supporting Targeted Restoration and Protection Implementation Actions Estimated Funding: $100,000- $200,000 per year

Roadside Ditch Mapping In 2017, the CBP commissioned research into methods for mapping the extent of the roadside ditch network in two Pennsylvania counties: York and Lancaster. This investment produced a methodology as well as a roadside ditch network dataset for the pilot areas (October 2017 report entitled Lidar-based roadside ditch mapping in York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania).

Many steps could be taken to expand and improve upon the workflow. One of these would be for the Chesapeake Bay Roadside Ditch Management Team to agree on a geospatial definition for ditches. Furthermore, the pilot methods described above rely on the use of visually-determined rather than statistically-derived thresholds for mapping roadside ditches. This approach would not be scalable across the watershed as it would rely on a trained analyst to visually inspect possible roadside ditches for the entire area of the Chesapeake Bay watershed and set thresholds to capture the ditch extents while minimizing errors. To aid in the development of an automated or semi-automated approach, fieldwork should be conducted to create a ground-truthed dataset that documents the full extent (i.e. from start of ditch to end of ditch) of a number of ditches of varying depths, widths, and bank slopes for each of the six watershed states. Research should be conducted comparing the extents of the field-surveyed ditches to those of remotely-sensed ditches to establish a scalable and automated/semi-automated approach for roadside ditch mapping. If Bay states were to request, the awarded entity shall have the capacity to apply the methodology to agricultural ditches in defined areas identified by the state(s).

Chesapeake Bay Hydrology Mapping In June 2018, the CBP Land Use Work Group will receive a methodology and sample data for mapping hydrologic channels throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed at a 1:2000 - 1:2500 scale. The workflow will rely on direct detection methods and regional thresholds for GIS-based terrain layers; thresholds will be adapted to different physiographic regions and local conditions so that geographic variations in channel initiation are incorporated. The Partnership’s goal is to improve upon the resolution of the National Hydrography Dataset, as well as current Lidar-based methods that rely on constant contributing area thresholds and overestimate the extent of low-order channels. While sample data may be limited to the 14 small watersheds already examined, the methodology will need to be applied more broadly, across the Chesapeake Bay watershed, where Lidar data of sufficient quality are available. An accuracy assessment and quality control effort will need to be developed and applied to the final product.

Activity 3: BMP Planning and Reporting Program Area Estimated Funding: $100,000- $200,000 per year

Best Management Practices and Benefit Quantification High-resolution land cover and hydrology data open many new possibilities for siting the placement of Best Management Practices (BMPs), optimization of the selection of BMPs, enabling a pay-for-performance restoration crediting system, and for developing a system to credit land conservation. However, there is a need to document and research the role of high-resolution datasets in developing these targeting, optimization, accounting and crediting systems.

Additionally, with the availability of parcel-scale spatial information gained through the high-resolution land cover product, planners need to understand if and/or how this magnification will impact existing models for selecting and crediting projects. They also need information about the limitations of the high-resolution land cover, including the presence of noise and errors in the datasets.

The Partnership is seeking expert technical support and coordination with state and federal science agencies in exploring the many possible applications of the land cover data in planning for the implementation, verification, and evaluation of the effectiveness of BMPs. Examples include the quantification of restoration opportunities across categories of BMPs, i.e. available acreage for riparian buffer restoration throughout the watershed or land cover composition within drainage areas of existing buffers. Another example is the prioritization, based on variables like drainage area size and land cover composition, of restoration opportunities for various BMPs. Currently, these prioritizations and assessments are being developed on an ad hoc basis;

therefore, the Partnership is seeking support in the collaborative development and watershed-wide application of such priority applications identified by the Partnership.

Integrating and Standardizing Basinwide and Local BMP Tracking and Reporting Because of barriers associated with reporting BMP projects, localities forego opportunities to gain credit for restoration practices; states often struggle to manage and verify BMP reports from counties or municipalities; and CBP partners ultimately lack spatial knowledge of specific restoration projects. Building from the existing BMP tracking, verification and reporting systems developed and approved by the CBP partnership over the past three decades, the Partnership is seeking technical support to take greater advantage of both the opportunities afforded by high-resolution land cover and other elevation and hydrologic data as well as other BMP tracking and reporting tools in use across the watershed. Solutions like using a platform with a customizable user interface and a standardized back-end would enable stakeholders at each of these scales to work more efficiently toward Bay restoration goals the Partnership is seeking. Such enhancements to the existing BMP tracking and reporting system would need to be constructed with minimal reporting inputs and be flexible enough to accommodate local reporting requirements. Beyond basic fields, reporting specifications should differentiate based on a user’s login. In other words, state-by-state, the reported information could be tailored. From the back-end, CBP staff could see all of the BMP projects reported across the watershed while users with state or county logins would see all BMPs within their respective jurisdictions. This would make reporting, monitoring, and verification of projects easier. Such solutions would also need to address privacy concerns for agricultural conservation practices.

The Partnership is seeking opportunities for the further integration of its decision support tools, like the Chesapeake Analysis and Scenario Tool or CAST, with existing or planned tools commonly used by counties, municipalities, environmental planners, engineers, etc. This would enhance the functionality of those tools and enable the users to take full advantage of the ever-evolving sets of information being continually updated in CAST and other Partnership tools.

Ideally, these tools could incorporate the minimum information requirements about locally-implemented BMP projects and provide users with a summary of estimated pollution reductions.

Activity 4: Partnership Geospatial and Web Mapping Support Estimated Funding: $90,000- $150,000 per year

Geospatial Support The Partnership is seeking geospatial support for data management, geospatial analyses and communication products to assist the CBP GIS Team in addressing geospatial needs identified by the GITs and their technical and programmatic and policy workgroups in their planning and reporting roles directed toward implementation of the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Agreement’s goals and outcomes. Examples of the technical support needed include developing standards for states and counties to follow when developing datasets and layers that are inputs for watershed-wide modeling efforts, such as protected lands, regulated areas, parcel boundaries, or planimetric information; preparing data inputs for watershed-wide modeling efforts;

developing data that can be used to help explain trends in water quality throughout the watershed and estuary; data documentation , including metadata development for modeling and monitoring data; and implementation of data-dissemination strategies developed by the CBPO, including developing and populating content into web-based map and data portals.

Web Mapping Support The Partnership seeks support for data dissemination and visualization of land cover, land use, hydrology, and other data via the web in both raster and vector formats and for enabling “clip, zip, and ship” options to facilitate data transfers to users’ areas of interest. This may include populating web-based geospatial data portals and developing web maps, web map applications, story maps, or other web-based geographic communication products or web map components of other decision support tools (e.g. CAST) requested by the CBPO.

C. EPA Strategic Plan Linkage & Anticipated Outcomes and Outputs

Pursuant to Section 6a of EPA Order 5700.7, “Environmental Results under EPA Assistance Agreements,” EPA must link proposed assistance agreements to the Agency’s Strategic Plan.

EPA also requires that grant applicants and recipients adequately describe environmental outputs and outcomes to be achieved under assistance agreements (see EPA Order 5700.7, Environmental Results under Assistance Agreements, accessible at https://www.epa.gov/grants/epa-order-57007a1-epas-policy-environmental-results-under-epa-assistance-agreements).

1. Linkage to EPA’s Strategic Plan The overall objective of this competition is to provide geospatial analysis support for the CBP partnership in support of the most cost-effective, efficient, and targeted pollutant load reduction, habitat restoration and protection, land conservation, and other implementation actions toward reaching the goals and outcomes of the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement under Section 117(d)(1) of the Clean Water Act.

EPA’s Strategic Plan is available at http://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/strategicplan.html.

The activities to be funded under this announcement are intended to further EPA’s current priorities to provide for clean and safe water as the activities will help promote waters that are clean through improved water infrastructure and, in partnership with states and tribes, sustainably manage programs to support drinking water, aquatic ecosystems, and recreational, economic and subsistence activities. Applicants must explain in their proposal how their project will further these current priorities

EPA Order 5700.7A1 also requires that grant applicants adequately describe environmental outputs and outcomes to be achieved under assistance agreements. Applicants must include specific statements describing the environmental results of the proposed project in terms of well-defined outputs and, to the maximum extent practicable, well-defined outcomes that will demonstrate how the project will contribute to the priorities described above.

2. Outputs 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. Expected outputs from the activities to be funded under this announcement may include the following:

• Web-based access to Chesapeake Bay watershed land cover and land use data and interpreted products and analysis at scales relevant to the users.

• Effective and targeted dissemination of the BMP tracking, verification and reporting tools and systems tailored to the CBP partners and stakeholders.

• Partnership and public access to a wide array of geospatial map and interpretative products at a multitude of scales relevant to the users.

Progress reports and a final report will also be required outputs, as specified in Section VI.C., Reporting, of this announcement.

3. Outcomes 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 achievable within an assistance agreement funding period. Example outcomes under this proposal could include the following:

• More cost-effective, pollutant load reduction efficient implementation of the jurisdictions’ Phase III WIPs when compared with the Phase II WIPs.

• Enhanced multi-partner, consensus-based environmental decision-making in the Chesapeake Bay watershed through applications of BMP and conservation targeting tools leading to more effective and cost-efficient decisions supporting restoration of the Chesapeake Bay and surrounding watershed ecosystems.

D. Authorizing Statutes and Regulations

The grant made as a result of this announcement is authorized under the Clean Water Act Section 117(d), 33 U.S.C. Section 1267(d). Under Clean Water Act Section 117(d) (1), 33 U.S.C.

Section 1267(d)(1), EPA has the authority to issue grants and cooperative agreements for the purposes of protecting and restoring the Chesapeake Bay's ecosystem. This project is subject to the Office of Management and Budget’ (OMB) Uniform Grants Guidance (2 CFR Part 200) and EPA-specific provisions of the Uniform Grants Guidance (2 CFR Part 1500).

II: AWARD INFORMATION

A. Funding Amount and Expected Number of Awards

The U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office plans to award one to four cooperative agreements under this RFP. The total estimated funding for six years is approximately $540,000 to $3,900,000 per activity with an estimated $90,000 to $650,000 available for the first year and each additional year per activity. However, it should be noted that these ranges are a broad representation of all the activities combined and specific funding ranges vary by activity as noted in the RFP. Therefore, applicants should refer to each specific activity for the actual funding amount when developing its proposal(s).

EPA reserves the right to reject all proposals and make no awards under this announcement or less than expected. Funding for each activity depends on funding availability, satisfactory performance, Agency priorities, and other applicable considerations. EPA makes no commitment of annual funding amounts for any fiscal year(s), as funds may be limited based on these applicable considerations.

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 selection is made. Any additional selection for awards will be made no later than six months after the original selection decision.

B. Award Type

Successful applicants will be issued a cooperative agreement as appropriate. 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 awards cooperative agreements for those projects in which it expects to have substantial interaction with the recipient throughout the performance of the 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.

For this project, federal involvement would typically be in the form of participation with other CBP partners and stakeholders in an advisory capacity to the grantee. This participation is expected to include involvement through the various CBP Goal Implementation Teams and related committees and workgroups (on which EPA also participates to ensure that all the recommendations for technical work support the CBP partners). All work conducted is to support the efforts to restore the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem and its surrounding watershed.

C. Partial Funding

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 project, it will do so in a manner that does not prejudice the applicant or affect the basis upon which the proposal or portion thereof was evaluated and selected for award and therefore maintains the integrity of the competition and selection process.

D. Expected Project Period

The expected project period for the cooperative agreement is six years, with funding provided on an annual basis. No commitment of funding can be made beyond the first year. The expected start date for the award resulting from this RFP is August 09, 2018.

E. Pre-Award Costs

Recipients may incur otherwise eligible and allowable pre-award costs up to 90 days prior to award at their own risk without prior approval of EPA’s award official. Pre-award costs must comply with 2 CFR 200.458 and 2 CFR 1500.8. If EPA determines that the requested pre-award costs comply with the relevant authorities, and that the costs are justified as allocable to the project, then these costs may be included as allowable expenditures at the time that the assistance award document is prepared.

However, if for any reason EPA does not fund the proposal or the amount of the award is less than the applicant anticipated, then EPA is under no obligation to reimburse the applicant for these costs incurred. Thus, applicants incur pre-award costs at their own risk. Costs incurred more than 90 days prior to award require the approval of EPA Region 3’s grant official.

III: ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

A. Eligible Applicants

Nonprofit organizations, state and local governments, colleges, universities, and interstate agencies are eligible to submit proposals in response to this RFP. For-profit organizations are not eligible to submit proposals in response to this RFP.

B. Cost-Share or Matching Requirements

Pursuant to Clean Water Act 117(d)(2)(A), 33 U.S.C. Section 1267(d)(2)(A), the agency shall determine the cost-share requirements for awards. The CFDA Number 66.466 states that assistance agreement applicants must commit to a cost-share ranging from five to 50 percent of eligible project costs as determined at the sole discretion of EPA. For this RFP, EPA has determined that an applicant must provide a minimum of five percent of the total cost of the project as the non-federal cost-share.

Cost-share may be in the form of cash or in-kind contributions. Involvement from foundations, watershed groups, private sector, eligible governmental, as well as non-conventional partners can help with the match. This match must be met by eligible and allowable costs and is subject to the match provisions in grant regulations. Proposals that do not demonstrate how the five percent match will be met will be rejected.

C. Threshold Eligibility Criteria

Only proposals from eligible entities (see Section III.A above) that meet the following threshold eligibility criteria will be evaluated against the criteria in Section V.B. Applicants must meet the following threshold criteria to be considered for funding. Applicants deemed ineligible for funding consideration as a result of the threshold eligibility review will be notified in writing 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.

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. In addition, 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/application 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 system issues. An applicant’s failure to timely submit their proposal/application 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 James Hargett at hargett.james@epa.gov (see Section VII, Agency Contact) as soon as possible after the submission deadline—failure to do so may result in your proposal [or application] not being reviewed.

4. For a proposal to be considered eligible for funding, substantive project-related work included in the proposal must take place within the Chesapeake Bay watershed, which includes portions of Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia, and all of the District of Columbia.

5. Proposals must show how they will meet the five percent cost-share requirement of Section III.B.

6. Proposals requesting more than the maximum funding amount listed in the range for the applicable (or…