V6_RME_RFA_FINAL.pdf

SOUTHEAST NEW ENGLAND PROGRAM

2022 Request for Applications to Develop and Implement a Model Responsible Management

Entity (RME) in Southeast New England

Summary Federal Agency Name: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1

Funding Opportunity Title: Southeast New England Program (SNEP) Model Responsible

Management Entity (RME) Project

Announcement Type: Request for Applications (RFA)

Funding Opportunity Number: EPA-I-R1-SNEP-2022A

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 66.129

Important Dates:

Informational Webinar and EJScreen

Overview

5/26/2022; 12:30 – 2:00pm EDT (recorded)

Deadline for submitting questions via email about the RFA

6/1/2022 11:59 Eastern Standard Time (EDT)

Closing Date and Application Deadline

Application packages must be submitted electronically to EPA through Grants.gov

(www.grants.gov). (see Section IV for details)

On or before 6/17/2022 11:59 Eastern

Standard Time (EDT)

Anticipated Applicant Notification

July 2022

Anticipated Announcement of Award. September 2022

Information relating to the RFA process as well as Q&As will be provided at www.epa.gov/snep.

An informational webinar is scheduled for 5/26/2022 from 12:30-2:00pm EDT at which applicants may ask questions and learn how to use the EJScreen tool. This informational webinar will be recorded, edited, and posted to the SNEP website. Additionally, applicants can send questions to SEcoastalNE@epa.gov until 6/1/2022 at 11:59 EDT.

CONTENTS BY SECTION

I. Funding Opportunity Description

II. Award Information

III. Eligibility Information

IV. Application and Submission Information

V. Application Review Information

VI. Award Administration Information http://www.grants.gov/ http://www.epa.gov/snep https://www.epa.gov/snep/funding-and-technical-assistance-southeast-new-england-program mailto:SEcoastalNE@epa.gov

VII. Agency Contacts

VIII. Other Information

IX. Appendices

Section I Funding Opportunity Description A) Background for the Southeast New England Program The objective of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) is to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters." Despite continuing progress in achieving these goals, coastal ecosystems are recognized as particularly vulnerable to upstream pollution sources, fragmented management, and the impacts of climate change. The coastal watersheds of southeast New England are prime examples of this vulnerability. The economy and community health of this region are directly tied to its unique ecological systems, but these systems are currently impaired by excessive nutrients from wastewater and septic systems, by the legacies of past industrial uses, by shifting socio-economic patterns, and other factors.

Traditionally, these problems have been addressed independently, separated by jurisdictions, institutional identities, and sometimes parochial interests. It has become clear, however, that the scope and scale of these environmental stressors calls urgently for a more holistic approach to protecting aquatic ecosystems and sustaining local communities. Created by Congress to take this approach, SNEP’s and EPA’s role as a partnership facilitator among multiple organizations is central to its mission to empower collective action in these areas, and its focus on the region’s ecosystems offers an opportunity to address complex common issues while also working at the local scale to align restoration and management efforts more broadly to achieve greater effectiveness and efficiency. SNEP’s priorities and goals have been laid out in the Southeast

New England Program 2021-2025 Strategic Plan. This RFA is consistent with SNEP Goal 1:

Resilient ecosystem of safe and healthy waters; SNEP Goal 2: Thriving watersheds and natural lands; Priority Action 2: Increase available solutions; and Priority Action 4: Demonstrate ways to address common challenges.

B) Problem Statement SNEP’s Five-Year Strategic Plan specifically includes priority actions to increase available solutions and demonstrate ways to address common challenges. Furthermore, the Plan identifies nutrient pollution from traditional septic systems as a significant challenge that continues to threaten coastal ecosystems throughout our region. Traditional septic systems are effective at treating some components of residential wastewater, such as bacteria, but are not designed specifically to remove nutrients, like nitrogen, during treatment. Additionally, as septic systems age, they can begin to leak their contents into nearby groundwater without proper treatment and contribute significantly to nitrogen pollution downstream. All this septic-born nitrogen can travel through groundwater and out to embayments where it can cause harmful algal blooms, low dissolved oxygen, and fish kills. These traditional septic systems are a dominant form of wastewater treatment in many parts of the SNEP region. The Cape Cod Commission estimates that 78% of all controllable nitrogen pollution on Cape Cod can be contributed to septic systems

(2015, Cape Cod Area Wide Water Quality Management Plan Update). Similarly, the

Narraganset Bay National Estuary Program estimates that 38% of the Narragansett Bay watershed is served by septic systems, with local utilization as high as 90% in some areas (2017, State of the Bay Report).

https://www.epa.gov/snep/snep-program-plans-and-reports https://www.epa.gov/snep/snep-program-plans-and-reports https://www.capecodcommission.org/resource-library/file/?url=/dept/commission/team/208/208%20Final/Cape_Cod_Area_Wide_Water_Quality_Management_Plan_Update_June_15_2015.pdf https://www.nbep.org/state-of-the-bay#technical-reports https://www.nbep.org/state-of-the-bay#technical-reports

Such a large number of systems spread throughout the region presents a challenge for proper management. Operation and maintenance tasks can often be left to homeowners (with mixed results), older style systems can be allowed to remain by “grandfathering”, and without holistic oversight, aggregate contribution of individual systems to nitrogen load or the aggregate impact of climate change on decentralized wastewater treatment are not always considered. All of these have broad impact on our region’s ecosystems.

Many municipalities are working to phase out septic systems in favor of centralized wastewater treatment plants to address their wastewater borne nitrogen problems. However, this process can take decades to complete and is costly. Furthermore, there remain areas where sewering is not possible due to physical, political, cultural, or monetary limitations, and where septic systems remain the only alternative.

For the areas that will remain reliant on septic systems but must still reduce their nitrogen pollution, innovative and alternative septic systems (I/A systems) have shown promise to help address these concerns. These systems are specifically designed to reduce nitrogen. There are numerous proprietary and non-proprietary I/A systems approved for use in the SNEP region as well as a handful of newer technologies that achieve better nitrogen reduction, but still require further evaluation. For these newer technologies, often called Enhanced I/A Systems (EIA), to meet general use requirements at the State level, a critical mass of systems must be installed in the field to demonstrate their effectiveness before they can be approved.

Even approved I/A systems, however, are not yet in widespread use in the SNEP region, due in part to their cost, lack of regulations mandating their use, concern and lack of information about performance, and their increased operation, maintenance and monitoring requirements. To alleviate some of these barriers, and to better manage traditional systems, EPA has developed a set of community based septic management models, the most comprehensive of which is called a

Responsible Management Entity (RME). An RME can be defined as a legal entity responsible for providing various management services with the requisite managerial, financial, and technical capacity to ensure the long-term, cost-effective management of decentralized onsite or clustered wastewater treatment facilities in accordance with applicable regulations and performance criteria. In essence, an RME acts as a wastewater utility, but with many small treatment plants (i.e., individual septic systems) as opposed to one centralized treatment plant.

Further, the creation and scale of an RME management may lower costs for individual homeowners and may alleviate the need for large one-time expenses to homeowners (i.e., system replacements) by collecting monthly fees, thus pooling risk.

C) Program Goals and Objectives

This RFA sets forth a competitive process to solicit and select up to two applicants in the SNEP geographic boundaries, one each in Rhode Island and Massachusetts, to develop an RME while simultaneously installing, monitoring, and operating/overseeing I/A septic systems (otherwise known as alternative and experimental (A/E)) in the area covered by the RME. The goal of this effort is to advance the adoption and installation of I/A septic systems by demonstrating the effectiveness of the comprehensive RME model to manage them. An additional goal is to install the best available I/A technologies (those consistently achieving below 12 mg/l-nitrogen in their effluent) in order to gather more information on their performance. These goals, and the advancement of I/A septic use in general, have long been identified as a priority in New England and especially the area covered by the SNEP.

This RFA and subsequent awards are intended to support SNEP’s goals and priorities as set forth in SNEP’s five year strategic plan by funding up to two selected entities to establish an RME in

Rhode Island and Massachusetts; and install a series of best available I/A septic systems that show strong promise of consistently achieving below 12 mg/l-nitrogen (systems achieving at or below this threshold are referred to as Enhanced I/A (EIA) systems; see appendix). Options for selecting entities and awarding funds could include:

- Funding a separate entity in each state to establish and manage an RME in its respective state (Two grants would be awarded)

- Funding a single entity to establish an RME in each state (two grants would be awarded, one for each state, and applicants would need to demonstrate their authority and administrative and fiscal capability, state knowledge, capacity, and resources to effectively manage both projects if both applications are selected)

Subject to the availability of appropriated funds and Agency priorities, the total estimated funding available for each award under this competitive opportunity is up to $1,115,000

($1.15M) in federal funding, with a total project period of up to five (5) years. The total estimated funding for this competitive opportunity is up to $2.3 million. We anticipate awarding up to two cooperative agreements (one in Rhode Island, one in Massachusetts) from this announcement, subject to availability of funds, the quality of applications received, and other applicable considerations. We anticipate fully funding each award with up to $1.15M. All actions under these awards must be accomplished within the five (5) year project period.

Proposed project areas must be located mainly within the SNEP region (Regional Map) and can include multiple coverage areas within the proposed state (Massachusetts or Rhode Island). The proposed RME area must exist entirely in one state or the other and must be mainly in the SNEP area. If small portions of the RME exist outside of the SNEP region due to town or watershed boundary considerations, the applicant should state as much and explain how the inclusion of non-SNEP areas will enhance their project.

EPA does not endorse any one septic system type; however, preference will be given to systems that have been well documented to effectively manage and reduce total nitrogen concentrations below 12 mg/L-N in this or comparable regions.

This funding opportunity is designed to develop and implement two (2) feasible RMEs that could serve as models for regional partners. RME design can vary provided that the design meets the criteria of either management model described above (Figure 1). I/A choice and RME design should prioritize regional transferability. Applicants should highlight how their approach might be transferrable to other similar environments in the SNEP region; and how the applicant proposes to continue or expand the RME following the completion of the grant period.

While the effects of aging septic systems are realized more generally throughout the SNEP region, underserved communities are often those with limited access to resources to address these concerns (see Section 1.I). For this reason, this funding opportunity asks applicants to prioritize the inclusion of underserved communities in the selection of this proposed project area https://epa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=596401a1439e48a8a02ce9473b453c41 provided that these areas also meet the qualifications described in Section IV; and prioritize the meaningful involvement of these underserved communities throughout the course of this project.

In general, the applicant should describe a strategy for the five (5) year project period to develop an initial plan design, establish an RME, install EIAs, and describe community training opportunities. Initial plans:

• should address specifically how EPA SNEP funding will be used; Should describe how the applicant will gain the necessary stakeholder buy-in to install EIAs and design and implement a successful RME. This may include homeowners, local officials and governments, state, tribal, or federal governments, regional planning agencies, industry, and/or academics;

• do not need to be comprehensive but should adequately address the goals of this RFA and should provide sufficient detail to describe proposed actions over the project period;

• should address how the applicant intends to leverage sources of funding and expertise from various organizations (if applicable), build partnerships, involve community members, and if appropriate, incorporate practices that promote multiple benefits of social and economic well-being;

• should detail how the RME will continue following the completion of this award, including plans to continue the operation of the RME, such as a transition to a fee-for-service model, incorporation into a municipality, or expansion to additional systems;

• should propose education and outreach efforts to inform homeowners and operators on the benefits and operation of the RME; should propose trainings for homeowners and operators on RME functionality, reporting, and operation;

• should describe the applicants administrative and fiscal capacity to manage and operate the proposed RME. As well as the legal authority to be utilized by the recipient or partners to manage and/or operate the RME; and

• should include how the recipient will utilize and capitalize on existing homeowner tax considerations of grants and loans for septic system upgrades. Tax considerations for

RMEs and residential IAs vary by state. The applicant should demonstrate a working understanding of these considerations, and work within the framework of existing septic loan programs in RI and MA.

The strongest applicants will be active in the proposed area with connections to other organizations working in the area, have established municipal buy-in for the development of a responsible management entity, and have expressed homeowner buy-in, support, and/or letters of interest.

D) Expected Outputs and Outcomes For this RFA:

• The term “outcome” means the result, effect or consequence that will be achieved by carrying out an environmental activity, effort, and/or associated work product that is related to an environmental or programmatic goal or objective. Outcomes may be environmental, behavioral, health-related, or programmatic in nature, must be quantitative, and may not necessarily be achievable within a grant funding period. For this RFA, “Desired Outcomes” describe the project metrics and conditions that we aim to achieve for the SNEP region that are found in the SNEP Strategic Plan. Efforts to https://www.rihousing.com/community-septic-system-loan-program-csslp/ https://www.mass.gov/guides/title-5septic-systems-financial-assistance-opportunities-for-system-owners achieve these outcomes will steer the actions necessary to meet specific targets; these outcomes include:

• waters that support native seagrasses and aquatic life, plentiful native fish and shellfish, and a variety of water-based recreation opportunities;

• watersheds that provide essential ecological functions, species diversity, and protection from both human-based and naturally occurring environmental stressors, and healthy, connected natural lands support a variety and range of native plant and wildlife communities; and

• communities that share robust water-based economies, strive to foster equity in health and economic outcomes, protect and provide access to natural lands, open spaces and parks, encourage local food sources, and are adapting for resilience to expected impacts of climate change.

• 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 over the term of the grant funding period. For this RFA, “Outputs (Actions)” are detailed activities that SNEP and our partners will undertake during to meet quantitative targets, work towards accomplishing desired outcomes, and ultimately achieve the SNEP 2050 regional vision and goals.

Applicants should consider the following questions when developing output and outcome measures of quantitative and qualitative results:

• What are the measurable short term and longer-term results the projects funded will achieve?

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

• Are there ways to incorporate social and/or economic benefits as part of a broader environmental improvement effort?

E) Statutory Authorization for Award The SNEP program is authorized by the Consolidated Appropriation Act, 2022. This authority allows EPA to award grants and cooperative agreements to carry out the SNEP, including planning, research, monitoring, outreach, and implementation projects within the SNEP geographic area.

Funding for this award will come from the Infrastructure, Investment and Jobs Act of 2021

(Bipartisan Infrastructure Law or BIL), Public Law 117-58.

F) General Environmental Results and Strategic Plan Information The activities to be funded under this solicitation support EPA’s Draft FY 2022-2026 Strategic

Plan. Awards made under this solicitation will support Strategic Plan Goal 5: Ensure Clean and

Safe Water for All Communities, Objective 5.1 Ensure Safe Drinking Water and Reliable Water

Infrastructure, and Objective 5.2: Protect and Restore Waterbodies and Watershed of the Draft

Plan; and will support EPA-SNEP’s 2020 – 2025 Strategic Plan. Awards will support Strategic https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/strategicplan https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/strategicplan https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/strategicplan https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/strategicplan https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-11/documents/snep-2021-2025-strategic-plan.pdf

Plan Goal 1: Achieve a Resilient Ecosystem of Safe and Healthy Waters, and Goal 2: Ensure

Thriving Watersheds and Natural Lands.

G) Additional Provisions for Applicants Incorporated into The Solicitation Additional provisions that apply to sections III, IV, V, and VI of this solicitation and/or awards made under this solicitation, can be found at EPA Solicitation Clauses. These provisions are important for applying to this solicitation and applicants must review them when preparing applications for this solicitation. If you are unable to access these provisions electronically at the website above, please contact the EPA point of contact listed in this solicitation (usually in

Section VII) to obtain the provisions.

H) Minority Serving Institutions EPA recognizes that it is important to engage all available minds to address the environmental challenges the nation faces. At the same time, EPA seeks to expand the environmental conversation by including members of communities which may have not previously participated in such dialogues to participate in EPA programs. For this reason, EPA strongly encourages all eligible applicants identified in Section III, including minority serving institutions (MSIs), to apply under this opportunity.

For purposes of this solicitation, the following are considered MSIs:

1. Historically Black Colleges and Universities, as defined by the Higher Education Act (20

U.S.C. § 1061(2)). A list of these schools can be found at Historically Black Colleges and

Universities

2. Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs), as defined by the Higher Education Act (20

U.S.C. § 1059c(b)(3) and (d)(1)). A list of these schools can be found at American Indian

Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities

3. Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs), as defined by the Higher Education Act (20 U.S.C. §

1101a(a)(5)). A list of these schools can be found at Hispanic-Serving Institutions

4. Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions; (AANAPISIs), as defined by the Higher Education Act (20 U.S.C. § 1059g(b)(2)). A list of these schools can be found at

Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions; and

5. Predominately Black Institutions (PBIs), as defined by the Higher Education Act of 2008, 20

U.S.C.

1059e(b)(6). A list of these schools can be found at Predominately Black Institutions

I) Inclusion of Environmental Justice Considerations While applicants are free to propose any appropriate area in the SNEP region for RME implementation (see Section I.C.), applicants that include areas for RME coverage based on relevant environmental justice considerations will be scored higher (see Section V.B.).

Environmental justice (EJ) is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, https://www.epa.gov/grants/epa-solicitation-clauses https://sites.ed.gov/whhbcu/one-hundred-and-five-historically-black-colleges-and-universities/ https://sites.ed.gov/whhbcu/one-hundred-and-five-historically-black-colleges-and-universities/ https://sites.ed.gov/whiaiane/tribes-tcus/tribal-colleges-and-universities/ https://sites.ed.gov/whiaiane/tribes-tcus/tribal-colleges-and-universities/ https://sites.ed.gov/whiaiane/tribes-tcus/tribal-colleges-and-universities/ https://sites.ed.gov/hispanic-initiative/hispanic-serving-institutions-hsis/ https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1XVkOWKMDORm53pvU0L8EPsrJC94&msa=0&ie=UTF8&t=m&z=3&source=embed&ll=40.58644586187277%2C-148.28228249999984 https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1wlIi3j7gtlNq_w-0NKAb2bF2VmY&ie=UTF&msa=0&ll=37.35160769312532%2C-96.17229800000001&z=4 implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies. Fair treatment means no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, governmental and commercial operations or policies.

Meaningful involvement means people have an opportunity to participate in decisions about activities that may affect their environment and/or health; the public's contribution can influence the regulatory agency's decision; community concerns will be considered in the decision making process; and decision makers will seek out and facilitate the involvement of those potentially affected. For purposes of this competition and the evaluation of applications, “underserved communities” means people/communities of color, low income, tribal and indigenous populations, and other vulnerable populations such as the elderly, children, and those with pre-existing medical conditions. Applicants should utilize EPA’s Environmental Justice Screening

Tool (EJScreen) to determine the demographic considerations of their proposed areas and include a brief analysis that demonstrates consideration of EJ. See Section IV.C. for more information.

Section II – Award Information A) Funding Amount and Expected Number of Awards

EPA expects to award up to two (2) cooperative agreements for activities under this RFA:

one for a project in Massachusetts, and one for a project in Rhode Island. The total estimated funding available for awards under this competitive opportunity is up to $1,115,000 per award for a project period of up to five (5) years. Funding for each agreement is not to exceed $1,115,000 total over five years. The total amount of funding competed under this opportunity is $2,300,000. All funding decisions are subject to funding availability, quality of applications, and other applicable considerations.

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

C) No Awards Provision EPA reserves the right to reject all proposals and make no award under this announcement.

EPA intends to make at least one award to the highest-ranking applicants in each state within the SNEP region. If there are no high-ranking applicants in a state, then EPA reserves the right to make no award in that state.

D) Additional Awards EPA reserves the right to make additional awards under this solicitation, consistent with

Agency policy and guidance, if additional funding becomes available after the original http://www.ejscreen.epa.gov/mapper selections are made. Any additional selections for awards will be made no later than 6 months after the original selection decisions.

E) Funding Type EPA intends to award cooperative agreements under this solicitation. Cooperative agreements provide for substantial involvement between the EPA Project Officer and the selected applicant(s) in the performance of the work supported. Although EPA will negotiate precise terms and conditions relating to substantial involvement as part of the award process, the anticipated substantial federal involvement for these projects may include:

• close monitoring of the successful applicant’s performance to verify the results proposed by the applicant;

• collaboration during performance of the scope of work;

• in accordance with 2 C.F.R. § 200.317 and 2 C.F.R. § 200.318, review of proposed procurement;

• approving qualifications of key personnel (EPA will not select employees or contractors employed by the award recipient); and

• review and comment on reports prepared under the cooperative agreement (the final decision on the content of reports rests with the recipient).

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.

F) Award Funding and Incremental/ Full Funding Awards may be fully or incrementally funded, as appropriate, based on funding availability, satisfactory performance, and other applicable considerations.

Section III – Eligibility Information Note: Additional provisions that apply to this section can be found at EPA Solicitation

Clauses.

A) Eligible Applicants In accordance with Assistance Listing 66.129, assistance under this SNEP RFA is available to state, local, and tribal governments; institutions of higher education;

nonprofit institutions and organizations; and interstate agencies. Private businesses, federal agencies, and individuals are not eligible to apply; however, they may work in partnership with eligible applicants on these projects.

For-profit organizations are not an eligible entity for this funding opportunity.

Additionally, non-profit organizations described in Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal

Revenue Code that engage in lobbying activities as defined in Section 3 of the Lobbying

Disclosure Act of 1995 are not eligible to apply.

https://www.epa.gov/grants/epa-solicitation-clauses

Consistent with the definition of Nonprofit organization at 2 C.F.R. § 200.1, the term nonprofit organization means any corporation, trust, association, cooperative, or other organization that is operated mainly for scientific, educational, service, charitable, or similar purpose in the public interest and is not organized primarily for profit; and uses net proceeds to maintain, improve, or expand the operation of the organization. The term includes tax-exempt nonprofit neighborhood and labor organizations. Note that 2 C.F.R.

§ 200.1 specifically excludes Institutions of Higher Education from the definition of non-profit organization because they are separately defined in the regulation. While not considered to be a non- profit organization(s) as defined by 2 C.F.R. § 200.1, public or nonprofit Institutions of Higher Education are, nevertheless, eligible to submit applications under this RFA. For-profit colleges, universities, trade schools, and hospitals are ineligible.

Nonprofit organizations that are not exempt from taxation under section 501 of the

Internal Revenue Code must submit other forms of documentation of nonprofit status;

such as certificates of incorporation as nonprofit under state or tribal law. Nonprofit organizations exempt from taxation under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue

Code that lobby are not eligible for EPA funding as provided in the Lobbying

Disclosure Act, 2 U.S.C. § 1611.

B) Cost Sharing, Match, and Leveraging

No matching funds are required under this competition. Although cost sharing/matching is not required as a condition of eligibility under this competition, under Section V of this announcement, EPA will evaluate proposals based on a leveraging criterion.

Leveraging is generally when an applicant proposes to provide its own additional funds/resources or those from third party sources to support or complement the project they are awarded under the competition which are above and beyond the EPA grant funds awarded. Any leveraged funds/resources, and their source, must be identified in the proposal (see Section IV of the announcement). Leveraged funds and resources may take various forms as noted below.

--Voluntary cost share is a form of leveraging. Voluntary cost sharing is when an applicant voluntarily proposes to legally commit to provide costs or contributions to support the project when a cost share is not required. Applicants who propose to use a voluntary cost share must include the costs or contributions for the voluntary cost share in the project budget on the SF-424. If an applicant proposes a voluntary cost share, the following apply:

• A voluntary cost share is subject to the match provisions in the grant regulations

(2 C.F.R. § 200.306).

• A voluntary cost share may only be met with eligible and allowable costs.

• The recipient may not use other sources of federal funds to meet a voluntary cost share unless the statute authorizing the other federal funding provides that the federal funds may be used to meet a cost share requirement on a federal grant.

• The recipient is legally obligated to meet any proposed voluntary cost share that is included in the approved project budget. If the proposed voluntary cost share does not materialize during grant performance, then EPA may reconsider the legitimacy of the award and/or take other appropriate action as authorized by 2

C.F.R. Part 200 or 1500.

--Other leveraged funding/resources that are not identified as a voluntary cost share. This form of leveraging may be met by funding from another federal grant, from an applicant's own resources, or resources from other third-party sources. This form of leveraging should not be included in the budget and the costs need not be eligible and allowable project costs under the EPA assistance agreement. While this form of leveraging should not be included in the budget, the grant workplan should include a statement indicating that the applicant is expected to produce the proposed leveraging consistent with the terms of the announcement and the applicant's proposal. If applicants propose to provide this form of leveraging, EPA expects them to make the effort to secure the leveraged resources described in their proposals. If the proposed leveraging does not materialize during grant performance, then EPA may reconsider the legitimacy of the award and/or take other appropriate action as authorized by 2 C.F.R.

Part 200 or 1500.

C) Threshold Eligibility Criteria Only proposals from eligible entities (see Section III.A above) that meet the following threshold eligibility criteria will be evaluated. Applicants deemed ineligible for funding consideration as a result of the threshold eligibility review will be notified within 15 calendar days of the ineligibility determination.

a. Applications must substantially comply with the application submission instructions and requirements set forth in Section IV of this solicitation or else they will be rejected. However, where a page limit is expressed in Section IV with respect to the application, or parts thereof, pages in excess of the page limitation will not be reviewed.

b. In addition, initial applications must be submitted through Grants.gov as stated in

Section IV of this solicitation (except in the limited circumstances where another mode of submission is specifically allowed for as explained in Section IV) on or before the application submission deadline published in Section IV of this solicitation. Applicants are responsible for following the submission instructions in Section IV of this solicitation to ensure that their application is timely submitted.

c. Applications 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 https://www.grants.gov/ https://www.grants.gov/ http://www.sam.gov/ applicant’s failure to timely submit their 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 application with SECoastalNE@epa.gov as soon as possible after the submission deadline—failure to do so may result in your application not being reviewed.

d. Applicants must indicate that they have the authority and ability to work in their proposed project area.

e. Applicants must demonstrate that they have, or are working to get, the support of the municipality(ies) in which the Model RME would be located. This support may be in the form of an endorsement, commitment to participate in the project, match/cost share, or letter of support. If applicants do not currently have municipal support, the applicant must include a plan on how they will secure municipal support.

f. All I/A installations and the majority of the Model RME must be located within the SNEP boundary to be eligible to be considered for funding. A high-resolution map of the SNEP area is found in Appendix A and at https://www.epa.gov/snep/background-information-southeast-new-england-program

g. Ineligible activities: If an application includes any ineligible tasks or 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 for funding.

f. Proposed Model RMEs must operate entirely in one state. Applicants who propose to work in both states must submit separate applications for each state.

Applications that include both states will be considered ineligible.

While these guidelines establish the minimum type size requirements, applicants are advised that readability is of paramount importance and should take precedence in selection of an appropriate font for use in the application.

D) Encouraging Minority Serving Institutions to Compete EPA recognizes that scientific, technical, engineering and mathematical (STEM) competence is essential to the Nation's future well-being in terms of national security and competitive economic advantage. For instance, the health and vitality of the economy is predicated, in part, on the availability of an adequate supply of scientists, technicians, engineers and mathematicians, to develop innovative technologies and solutions. In other words, this country must engage all available minds to address the challenges it faces. Minorities, women, and persons with disabilities historically have been under-represented in the STEM fields. For this reason, EPA strongly encourages https://www.grants.gov/ http://www.sam.gov/ https://www.grants.gov/ mailto:SECoastalNE@epa.gov https://www.epa.gov/snep/background-information-southeast-new-england-program https://www.epa.gov/snep/background-information-southeast-new-england-program all eligible applicants including, women, minorities, and persons with disabilities to apply.

Section IV – Application and Submission Information

A) Narrative Proposal Requirements

Eligible applicants should submit, as part of their application package, narrative proposals organized by the following sections and addressing the content described within:

i. Site Selection and Justification

The applicant should provide ample background information on the proposed RME area, including history of nutrient impairments, septic system locations or densities if known, known or proposed sewering plans, hydrologic assessments or known discharge points.

The applicant should include any of their other ongoing work that this project might relate to, as well as a map of the proposed project area.

Site selection of Model RME and EIA installations should specifically target areas with known nitrogen impairments caused by septic systems. Proposals should include the presence or absence of downstream freshwater ponds and explain whether the proposed area has an existing sewering plan. If a sewering plan exists, the applicant should include the timeframe of the sewering plan for the proposed area. Priority will be given for proposed areas in nitrogen-impaired waters and/or areas that cannot or will not be sewered for at least 15-20 years (or longer). Additionally, the proposal should provide assurance of access to private land as necessary to conduct EIA installation and monitoring of EIA systems throughout the project.

The proposed Model RMEs must operate entirely in one state; applicants who propose to work in both states must establish a separate RME in each state, and must submit two proposals. RMEs must be located primarily in the SNEP area. If small portions of the proposed RME would exist outside of the SNEP region due to town or watershed boundary considerations, applicants must explain how the inclusion of non-SNEP areas will enhance their project.

While applicants are free to propose any appropriate area in the SNEP region for RME implementation, applicants that include areas for RME coverage based on environmental justice and underserved community issues will be scored higher (See Section V.B.). For purposes of this competition and the evaluation of applications, “underserved communities” means people/communities of color, low income, tribal and indigenous populations, and other vulnerable populations such as the elderly, children, and those with pre-existing medical conditions. Applicants should utilize EPA’s Environmental https://www.epa.gov/grants/epa-solicitation-clauses

Justice Screening Tool (EJScreen) to determine the demographic considerations of their proposed areas and include a brief analysis that demonstrates consideration of EJ.

Environmental Justice Web-based Screening Tool - Applicants are encouraged, as appropriate, to include data from EPA’s EJScreen tool (or other EJ-focused geospatial mapping tools) as part of their application to help characterize and describe the affected communities/populations and areas and address the environmental justice criterion in

Section V. Data from other sources (e.g. studies, census, and third-party reports) should also be included to give a more complete picture of the impacted communities and populations. Instructions, resources, and tutorials on how to use EJSCREEN are included at the hyperlink above.

ii. Proposed Model RME Design, Installation, Management, and Longevity

For purposes of this RFA, EPA is focusing on the Type 4 and Type 5 management models described in Figure 1 and websites linked below because they offer the necessary oversight and scale to address the problems in the SNEP region. The proposed RME design must be consistent with either of these. Under these models, individual septic systems either remain owned by the homeowner and are maintained by the RME (Type

4) or the systems are entirely owned and maintained by the RME (Type 5). For more information, please reference EPA’s Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered

(Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems. For additional context, please reference the following EPA RME pilots for both Type 4 and Type 5 systems by using the corresponding hyperlinks.

Type 4 and Type 5 management structures were selected for this RFA because there is concern that Types 1 through 3 may not adequately address the operation and maintenance needs of I/A systems. Nor do they offer the oversight necessary for the scope and scale of the problem in our region.

http://www.ejscreen.epa.gov/mapper https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-06/documents/onsite_handbook.pdf https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-06/documents/onsite_handbook.pdf https://www.epa.gov/septic/septic-systems-case-studies-and-demonstration-projects#rmeOperation https://www.epa.gov/septic/septic-systems-case-studies-and-demonstration-projects#rmeOwnership

Figure 1: Description of EPA Type 4 and Type 5 management models for decentralized wastewater treatment systems.

Image adapted from Chapter 4, Table 2 of EPA’s Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems.

How the applicant plans to approach and establish an RME (or RMEs) is up to the applicant, but proposals must include the type and coverage of RMEs planned, their location and extent, and realistic expectations for achieving the goals of this RFA given funding/timing restrictions. In particular, the applicant will be expected to justify how the geographic extent/number of households served by the RMEs will be significant in achieving the goals of this RFA. Proposals that consider multi-municipal, county level, or watershed-based approaches will be scored higher than smaller-scale approaches. The applicant may propose to create multiple smaller RMEs under a larger umbrella framework or a single RME. Applications that emphasize an adaptive management approach will also be scored higher than those with a static approach. Applicants shall describe how they will evaluate the future EIA technologies that could be employed under the RME (i.e., how they will assess vendor performance claims).

The applicant must also identify the key stakeholders that have been, or will need to be, engaged to successfully establish an RME, as well as the timeline for RME establishment and how it will be enhanced, expanded, and/or maintained beyond the life of the grant, including if/how there are plans for the RME to become financially self-sufficient.

Applicants should describe their qualifications for establishing an RME and demonstrate their understanding of state-based legal and other requirements that may be involved with the establishment and operation of an RME (including operations, maintenance, and https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-06/documents/onsite_handbook.pdf https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-06/documents/onsite_handbook.pdf monitoring requirements). Proposed RMEs should also include the formation of a technical advisory committee to inform the RME’s design, operation, and management.

Applicants should describe the specific services the RME will provide, how and to whom they will be provided, and how the RME will become self-sufficient financially after the life of the grant. In addition to those properties where EIA systems are installed as part of the grant, RME coverage should also include all septic systems in the designated area.

Applicants should describe their knowledge of, and access to, additional funding sources to leverage resources under this RFA (MA and RI septic loan programs, HUD, etc.).

Applicants may determine the timeline for establishing the proposed RME but will be expected to have an established and operational RME by the end of the grant period, with buy-in from stakeholders. A transition to a fee-for-service model would be appropriate either during or following the completion of this grant provided that program income is treated in accordance with 2 C.F.R. § 200.307.

iii. Proposed EIA Design, Installation, and Management

In June 2021, EPA-SNEP hosted a three-day workshop on I/A septic systems, at which regional experts convened to discuss the state of I/A system technology, the cost and benefits of various wastewater treatment approaches, and how best to bring a new generation of EIAs from piloting to widespread, general use approval. The outcomes of this workshop are summarized here. Based on this workshop’s recommendations, this

RFA is intended to both (1) further EIA technology by funding their installation and monitoring to advance state general use approval; and (2) simultaneously fund the creation of responsible management entities to oversee the operation, maintenance, and monitoring of these and other septic systems in each state. While EPA-SNEP does not endorse any one I/A system design, proposed I/A systems for inclusion under this RFA must be listed on the pre-approved septic technologies lists for Massachusetts and/or

Rhode Island. EPA-SNEP will accept general-use approved, pilot-approved, and/or provisional-use approved systems for inclusion in this Program, however, EPA-SNEP is specifically looking to fund the implementation of systems that have demonstrated consistent effluent levels below 12 mg/L-N (Enhanced I/A systems).

The applicant should identify and describe in detail the number and type of EIA septic systems proposed for installation. Applicants that can demonstrate how the systems installed under this RFA will help bring a specific technology (or technologies) from pilot or provisional use to general use, will be scored higher. Pre-approved technology lists for Massachusetts and Rhode Island can be found by referencing the corresponding hyperlinks. Applications that focus on retrofits and replacements of existing standard septic systems, with preference to failing systems, will be scored higher, especially for areas that contribute to nitrogen-impaired waterbodies.

https://www.epa.gov/snep/developing-evaluating-promising-technologies-pushing-ball-forward-ia-septic-systems https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-08/snep-ia-workshop-summary-report.pdf https://www.mass.gov/doc/summary-table-of-innovativealternative-technologies-approved-for-use-in-massachusetts/download http://www.dem.ri.gov/programs/benviron/water/permits/isds/pdfs/ialist.pdf https://www.mass.gov/doc/summary-table-of-innovativealternative-technologies-approved-for-use-in-massachusetts/download http://www.dem.ri.gov/programs/benviron/water/permits/isds/pdfs/ialist.pdf

Because some of the I/A septic technologies that might be employed under this RFA are relatively new or in the testing phase, it is critical that applicants demonstrate how they will ensure homeowners not bear an undue burden should any system fail.

The exact type and number of EIAs to be installed under this RFA are to be determined by the applicant. The applicant should propose the type(s) of EIAs to be installed, their approval status, location (if known), and an estimate of how many systems are to be installed. The applicant shall demonstrate that their selected EIA technologies consistently achieve 12 mg/l-N or less in their effluent. This should be done with summary reports (or appropriate monitoring data) on the EIA, with preference to third party verification.

The applicant shall explain their proposed timeline for EIA system installation under this

RFA. Ideally, systems will be installed early in the grant period, but at least one (1) year before the end of the grant period to allow for system monitoring (described in section

IV.A.iii.).

The applicant shall describe their qualifications and experience regarding IA septic installations.

The applicant should avoid installing EIA systems in areas where downstream freshwater ponds, or other phosphorous sensitive areas, are the primary impairment worry.

Any EIAs installed with funding from this RFA must be installed within the proposed

RME boundary. Generally, the RME is not limited to managing only the EIA systems implemented under this funding agreement; rather, all systems in the proposed area should be included in the RME structure.

iv. Partnerships and Leveraging

Partnerships: Community buy-in and municipal support are key to ensuring longevity of this

Model RME. To ensure long-term success of the program, the applicant should describe:

• Proposed collaboration with project partners. The description should include how the applicant plans to closely engage local IA and RME system…