[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 29 (Thursday, February 12, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6978-6982]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-3091]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-7622-3]


Notice of Request for Initial Proposals (IP) for Projects To Be 
Funded From the Water Quality Cooperative Agreement Allocation (CFDA 
66.463--Water Quality Cooperative Agreements)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA Region 6 is soliciting Initial Proposals (IP) from State 
water pollution control agencies, interstate agencies, other public or 
nonprofit agencies, institutions, organizations, and other entities as 
defined by the Clean Water Act (CWA), interested in applying for 
Federal assistance for Water Quality Cooperative Agreements under the 
CWA section 104(b)(3) in the states of Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, 
Oklahoma and Texas. Region 6 EPA intends to award an estimated $1 
million to eligible applicants through assistance agreements ranging in 
size, on average, from $40,000 up to $200,000 (Federal) for innovative 
projects/demonstrations/studies that can be used as models relating to 
the prevention, reduction, and elimination of water pollution. From the 
IPs received, EPA estimates up to 8 to 10 projects may be selected to 
submit full applications. The Agency reserves the right to reject all 
IPs and make no awards. A Request for Proposals for Tribal governments 
will be issued under a separate notice.

DATES: EPA will consider all proposals received on or before 5 p.m. 
central standard time April 12, 2004. IPs received after the due date 
will not be considered for funding.

ADDRESSES: IPs should be mailed to: Terry Mendiola (6WQ-AT), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Water Quality Protection 
Division, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Overnight 
Delivery may be sent to the same address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Mendiola by telephone at 214-
665-7144 or by e-mail at [email protected].
    Required Overview Content:
    Federal Agency Name--Environmental Protection Agency, Water Quality 
Division, State Tribal Programs Section.
    Funding Opportunity Title--Water Quality Cooperative Agreements.
    Announcement Type--Initial announcement.
    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number--CFDA

[[Page 6979]]

66.463--Water Quality Cooperative Agreements
    Dates--April 12, 2004--Proposals due to EPA.
    June 11, 2004--Initial approvals identified and sponsors of 
projects selected for funding will be requested to submit a formal 
application package.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Funding Opportunity Description

    EPA Region 6's Water Quality Protection Division is requesting 
proposals from State water pollution control agencies, interstate 
agencies, other public or nonprofit agencies, institutions, 
organizations, and other entities as defined by the CWA for unique and 
innovative projects that address the National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System (NPDES) program with special emphasis on 
concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO) permitting, watershed 
integration through NPDES, and homeland security, as well as, water 
quality studies relating to water quality standards, monitoring and 
assessment, ecoregion and subregion delineation, harmful algal blooms, 
and biological criteria.
    Funding is authorized under the provisions of the CWA section 
104(b)(3), 33 U.S.C.1254(b)(3). The regulations governing the award and 
administration of Water Quality Cooperative Agreements are in 40 CFR 
part 30 (for institutions of higher learning, hospitals, and other 
nonprofit organizations) and 40 CFR part 31 (for States, local 
governments, and interstate agencies).
    An organization whose IP is selected for possible Federal 
assistance must complete an EPA Application for Assistance, including 
the Federal SF-424 form (Application for Federal Assistance, see 40 CFR 
30.12 and 31.10).

High Priority Areas for Funding Consideration

    WQCAs awarded under section 104(b)(3) may only be used to conduct 
and promote the coordination and acceleration of activities such as 
research, investigations, experiments, training, education, 
demonstrations, surveys, and studies relating to the causes, effects, 
extent, prevention, reduction, and elimination of water pollution. 
These activities, while not defined in the statute, advance the state 
of knowledge, gather information, or transfer information. For 
instance, ``demonstrations'' are generally projects that demonstrate 
new or experimental technologies, methods, or approaches and the 
results of the project will be disseminated so that others can benefit 
from the knowledge gained. A project that is accomplished though the 
performance of routine, traditional, or established practices, or a 
project that is simply intended to carry out a task rather than 
transfer information or advance the state of knowledge, however 
worthwhile the project may be, is not a demonstration. Research 
projects may include the application of the practices when they 
contribute to learning about an environmental concept or problem.
    EPA will award WQCAs for research, investigations, experiments, 
training, demonstrations, surveys and studies related to the causes, 
effects, extent, prevention, reduction, and elimination of water 
pollution in the following subject areas:
CAFO Permitting Support
    Demonstration of treatment/reuse/disposal technologies and controls 
that are designed to reduce CAFO-based nutrients in watersheds, with a 
demonstration of amount of loading reductions from those technologies, 
e.g., handling phosphorus-rich poultry litter in northwest Arkansas/
northeast Oklahoma; efficacy of wetlands to polish runoff or overflow 
from ponds and/or land application processes.
    Demonstration of nutrient indicator tracing in CAFO dominated, 
nutrient impaired watersheds, e.g., ribo-typing study to determine 
source of bacteria and pathogens, or nitrogen-ion study to determine 
source of nitrogen in waters, or hormone or antibiotic study to 
determine sources of excreted waste material.
Watershed Integration of Water Programs Under the CWA Through NPDES
    Development of innovative permit tool(s) supporting watershed-based 
permitting activities for specific parameters. Establish a technique 
for identifying all dischargers and their respective contribution 
levels for parameter(s) of concern within an impaired watershed. Should 
determine the overall impact of point and non-point dischargers on 
receiving waters. Pollutant data for water quality parameters, such as 
nutrients, dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform, etc., could be used in the 
development of a model (such as self-implementing general permits) for 
permitting activities. The model may incorporate unique permitting 
approaches including effluent trading scenarios (in accordance with the 
Water Quality Trading Policy, January 13, 2003), which may be 
implemented in the general permit for specific water quality 
parameters.
Homeland Security for NPDES
    Studies of ability of conventional or innovative wastewater 
treatment plant processes to effectively treat, remove, or render 
harmless biological, chemical, or radiological agents, which could be 
introduced into the collection or treatment system.
    Development of models for hardening of collection systems, lift 
stations, and wastewater treatment plant processes to prevent 
introduction of harmful biological, chemical, or radiological agents.
Characterization of Ecological Condition
    Estimation of the extent of waters attaining designated beneficial 
uses, and determination of causes of impairment, based on a core set of 
indicators of ecological condition and environmental stressors. 
Biological measures should form the primary basis for assessing 
attainment of the aquatic life use with chemical, physical, and 
watershed measurements used to assess and rank the relative importance 
of stressors.
Nutrient Criteria
    Development of effects based nutrient criteria and assessment 
methods, based on the relationship(s) between evidence of impairment of 
biological integrity, and/or other response indicators, and instream 
nutrient concentrations observed at reference waterbodies. Priority 
consideration will be given to proposals that also address criteria 
development and refinement for other naturally occurring water quality 
constituents.
Ecoregion and Subregion Delineation
    Ecoregion and subregion delineation providing an improved basis for 
waterbody classification, supporting definition of water quality 
management goals and expectations, development of water quality 
standards, and water quality monitoring and assessment.
Harmful Algal Blooms
    Critical research, monitoring necessary to characterize spacial and 
temporal extent of blooms, and implementation of measures to manage and 
control harmful algal blooms (HABs) in fresh or marine waters using 
innovative, cost effective watershed based approaches. HABs include 
golden alga (Pyrmnesium parvum), red tide, blue-green algae and brown 
algae. Of particular concern is the golden alga, which has established 
in numerous river basins in west Texas and New Mexico and has the 
potential to spread to other states.

[[Page 6980]]

Development of Biological Criteria for Large Rivers
    Development of attainable conditions for biological integrity in 
large rivers, where conventional reference waterbody approaches are not 
feasible, based on historical aquatic assemblage data from the same or 
similar waterbodies, habitat-modeling techniques, or other innovative 
approaches.

II. Award Information

    Region 6 EPA intends to award an estimated $1 million to eligible 
applicants through assistance agreements ranging in size, on average, 
from $40,000 up to $200,000 (Federal) for innovative projects/
demonstrations/studies that can be used as models relating to the 
prevention, reduction, and elimination of water pollution. From the IPs 
received, EPA estimates up to 8 to 10 projects may be selected to 
submit full applications. The average size of an award is anticipated 
to be approximately $100,000. Awards will be made in the summer of 
2004. Typically, the project and budget period for these awards is one 
to two years, with an average of about two years. Organizations who 
have an existing agreement under this program are eligible to compete 
for new awards, including supplementation to existing projects.
    It is expected that all the awards under this program will be 
cooperative agreements. States and interstate agencies meeting the 
requirements in 40 CFR 35.504 may include the funds for WQCA in a 
Performance Partnership Grant (PPG) in accordance with the regulations 
governing PPGs in 40 CFR part 35, subparts A and B. For states and 
interstate agencies that choose to do so, the regulations provide that 
the workplan commitments that would have been included in the WQCA must 
be included in the PPG workplan.
    A description of the Agency's substantial involvement in 
cooperative agreements will be included in the final agreement.

III. Eligibility Information

1. Eligible Applicants

    Eligible applicants for assistance agreements under section 
104(b)(3) of the CWA are State water pollution control agencies, 
interstate agencies, other public or nonprofit agencies, institutions, 
organizations, and other entities as defined by the CWA in the states 
of Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas. IPs received 
for projects outside of Region 6 will not be considered.

2. Cost Sharing or Matching

    A minimum match of five percent will be required for all approved 
projects and should be included in the total funding requested for each 
proposal submitted.

3. Other

    The specific criteria listed in the Criteria section of V. 
Application Review Information can also be considered eligibility 
criteria. The IPs will be evaluated by Region 6 in a two phased 
approach. Initially, each IP will be evaluated against the specific 
criteria listed under the priority area for which it was submitted. In 
order for the IP to be considered in the second evaluation phase, it 
must address, at a minimum, ALL the specific criteria listed under the 
priority area. Once it is determined that all the specific criteria has 
been addressed, proposals will be evaluated on how well they address 
the specific criteria. Eligible proposals will then be evaluated in the 
second phase of the review process.

IV. Application and Submission Information

1. Address To Request Application Package

    Full application packages should not be submitted at this time; 
Region 6 is only requesting initial proposals. Initial proposal format 
and content is included below. Upon notification of final selections, 
applicants will be instructed how financial assistance application 
packages can be obtained.

2. Proposal Format and Contents

    IPs should be no more than three pages with a minimum font size of 
10 pitch in Wordperfect/Word or equivalent. Failure to follow the 
format or to include all requested information could result in the IP 
not being considered for funding. It is recommended that confidential 
information not be included in this IP. The following format should be 
used for all IPs:
    Name of Project:
    Priority Area Addressed: Only one priority area should be listed. 
If more than one addressed, select best. (i.e., CAFO Permitting 
Support, Homeland Security for NPDES, Nutrient Criteria, etc.):
    Point of Contact: (Individual and Agency/Organization Name, 
Address, Phone Number, Fax Number, E-mail Address)
    Is This a Continuation of a Previously Funded Project (if so, 
please provide the status of the current grant or cooperative 
agreement):
    Proposed Federal Amount:
    Proposed Non-Federal Match (minimum of 5%): The match is based on 
the total project cost not the Federal amount. To determine a proposed 
minimum match of 5%, use the following example:
Federal amount = $25,000
Total Project Cost = T
The Federal amount is 95% of T, therefore:
$25,000 = T x 0.95
$25,000/0.95 = T
$26,316 = T (round the decimal)
If the total project cost is $26,316, then:
$26,316 x 0.05 = $1,316 non-Federal match

    Proposed Total Award Amount:
    Description of General Budget Proposed To Support Project:
    Project Description: (Should not exceed two pages of single-spaced 
text)
    Expected Accomplishments or Product, With Dates, and Interim 
Milestones: This section should also include a discussion of a 
communication plan for distributing the project results to interested 
parties.
    Environmental Results and Outcomes:
    Describe How the Project Meets the Evaluation Criteria Specified in 
Section V. Application Review Information:

3. Submission Dates and Times

    This is the estimated schedule of activities for submission, review 
of proposals and notification of selections:
    April 12, 2004--Proposals due to EPA.
    June 11, 2004--Initial approvals identified and sponsors of 
projects selected for funding will be requested to submit a formal 
application package.

4. Intergovernmental Review

    Applicants requested to submit a full application will be required 
to comply with Intergovernmental Review requirements (40 CFR part 29).

5. Funding Restrictions

    The following information should be considered in developing 
proposal(s):
     Construction projects, except for the 
construction required to carry out a demonstration project, and 
acquisition of land are not eligible for funding under this program.
     New or on-going programs to implement routine 
environmental controls are not eligible for funding under this program.
     Although proposals may meet more than one of the 
priority areas listed in Section I. Funding Opportunity Description, 
select only one and identify that priority area in the proposal format.
     It is encouraged that indirect cost be limited 
to 15 percent.

[[Page 6981]]

6. Other Submission Requirements

    Applicants may submit IPs only in hard copy. EPA will consider all 
proposals received on or before 5 p.m. central standard time April 12, 
2004. IPs received after the due date will not be considered for 
funding. IPs should be mailed to: Terry Mendiola (6WQ-AT), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Water Quality Protection 
Division, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Overnight 
Delivery may be sent to the same address. Please mail three copies of 
the IP(s).

V. Application Review Information

1. Criteria

    EPA Region 6 will award WQCA on a competitive basis and evaluate 
IPs based on specific and general criteria. EPA Region 6 has identified 
several subject areas for priority consideration. To be eligible to 
compete for funding, all specific criteria must be addressed/met for 
the priority area in which it was submitted (refer to Section III. 
Eligibility Information  3).
    The following specific criteria will be used to evaluate the 
subject priority area:
    CAFO Permitting Support, specifically, the demonstration of 
treatment/reuse/disposal technologies and controls that are designed to 
reduce CAFO-based nutrients in watersheds, with a demonstration of 
amount of loading reductions from those technologies, etc. The 
following specific criteria will be used to evaluate this priority 
area:
     Demonstrate treatment/reuse/disposal 
technologies and controls through testing and/or modeling.
     Report on the efficiencies.
    CAFO Permitting Support, specifically, the demonstration of 
nutrient indicator tracing in CAFO dominated, nutrient impaired 
watersheds, etc. The following specific criteria will be used to 
evaluate this priority area:
     Demonstrate nutrient indicator tracing in CAFO 
dominated, nutrient impaired watersheds, with identification and 
differentiation of sources of animal/CAFO wastes from human wastes.
    Watershed Integration of Water Programs Under the CWA Through 
NPDES, specifically, the development of innovative permit tool(s) 
supporting watershed-based permitting activities for specific 
parameters, etc. The following specific criteria will be used to 
evaluate this priority area:
     Include consideration of all waterbodies in a 
watershed.
     Include consideration of all point sources.
     Consider net contribution of non-point sources 
in aggregate effects.
     Provide aggregate water quality modeling which 
determines aggregate effects in the watershed.
    Homeland Security for NPDES, specifically, studies of ability of 
conventional or innovative wastewater treatment plant processes to 
effectively treat, remove, or render harmless biological, chemical, or 
radiological agents, which could be introduced into the collection or 
treatment system, etc. The following specific criteria will be used to 
evaluate this priority area:
     Actual performance data of processes vs. 
technical predictions of performance.
     Enhanced security procedure models and 
development of model emergency operating plans.
    Characterization of Ecological Condition, specifically, the 
estimation of the extent of waters attaining designated beneficial 
uses, and determination of causes of impairment, based on a core set of 
indicators of ecological condition and environmental stressors, etc. 
The following specific criteria will be used to evaluate this priority 
area:
     Mechanisms to evaluate the interrelationships 
between biological assemblages, ambient water chemistry, fish tissue 
contaminants, physical habitat, and/or watershed characteristics.
     Potential to improve a state's approaches to 
make decisions about whether or not water quality standards are being 
attained.
     Apply a probabilistic approach to site selection 
to support estimates of conditions across an entire study area.
     Result in the ability to compare environmental 
indicator data across state and regional boundaries for ambient and 
reference conditions.
     Offers the potential to improve a state's 
approach to estimate the extent of waterbody impairment statewide.
     Results integrated into State 305(b) report.
     All data entered into EPA STORET database.
    Nutrient Criteria, specifically, the development of effects based 
nutrient criteria and assessment methods, based on the relationship(s) 
between evidence of impairment of biological integrity, and/or other 
response indicators, and instream nutrient concentrations observed at 
reference waterbodies. Priority consideration will be given to 
proposals that also address criteria development and refinement for 
other naturally occurring water quality constituents. The following 
specific criteria will be used to evaluate this priority area:
     Demonstrate approaches or provide tools that may 
be applied in other areas.
     Apply the latest scientific approaches or 
innovative techniques to establish and validate the relationship(s) 
between elevated nutrient concentrations and indicator response.
     Result in recommendations for numeric water 
quality criteria standards or criteria that can be applied to a class 
of waters (rather than individual waters).
     Include mechanisms for technology transfer.
     All data entered into EPA's STORET database.
    Ecoregion and Subregion Delineation, specifically, ecoregion and 
subregion delineation providing an improved basis for waterbody 
classification, supporting definition of water quality management goals 
and expectations, development of water quality standards, and water 
quality monitoring and assessment. The following specific criteria will 
be used to evaluate this priority area:
     Conducted in New Mexico.
     High degree of coordination among natural 
resource and environmental management agency scientists.
     Result in completion of ecoregion and subregion 
boundaries and descriptions for an entire state.
     Conducted using methods comparable to those 
employed in other states by the EPA Office of Research and Development, 
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, to 
achieve level IV subregionalization.
     Result in a nationally consistent set of 
subregion management units.
    Harmful Algal Blooms, specifically, critical research, monitoring 
necessary to characterize spacial and temporal extent of blooms, and 
implementation of measures to manage and control harmful algal blooms 
(HABs) in fresh or marine waters using innovative, cost effective 
watershed based approaches, etc. The following specific criteria will 
be used to evaluate this priority area:
     Represent a significant step(s) of critical 
importance in understanding factors causing algal blooms.
     Incorporates both sound proven scientific 
methods and innovative approaches in managing and controlling HABs.
     Use of monitoring to assess geographic extent 
and temporal patterns resulting in a more targeted strategy to manage 
and control HABs.
    Development of Biological Criteria for Large Rivers, specifically, 
the development of attainable conditions for biological integrity in 
large rivers, where

[[Page 6982]]

conventional reference waterbody approaches are not feasible, based on 
historical aquatic assemblage data from the same or similar 
waterbodies, habitat-modeling techniques, or other innovative 
approaches. The following specific criteria will be used to evaluate 
this priority area:
     Results in the development of assessment methods 
for narrative water quality standards biocriteria or the adoption of 
numeric biocriteria for one or more aquatic assemblages.
     Based on sound scientific methods, waterbody 
classification approaches, and conventional collection methods that are 
practical for use by state environmental agencies.
     Yields comparable assessments to those conducted 
across state lines and other geopolitical boundaries.
    The following general criteria will be used to evaluate each 
eligible proposal:
     Adequacy of proposal, including the relationship 
of the proposed project to the priorities identified in this notice, 
innovation of project proposal and level of multi-organizational 
support, if needed. (10 points)
     Compliance with proposal format/guidance, 
including how well the proposal follows the solicitation notice, 
clearly defined milestones/schedule and clearly identified 
deliverables. (5 points)
     Cost effectiveness/likelihood of success of the 
proposal, including adequacy of resources committed to project/
realistic budget, realistic implementation schedule and clearly defined 
measures of success that are reasonably attainable. (5 points)
     Applicant's past performance, if applicable. 
(minus (-) 3 points max.)

2. Review and Selection Process

    The IPs will be evaluated by regional staff in a two phased 
approach. Initially, each IP will be evaluated against the specific 
criteria listed under the priority area for which it was submitted. In 
order for the IP to be considered in the second evaluation phase, it 
must address, at a minimum, ALL the specific criteria listed under the 
priority area. Once it is determined that all the specific criteria has 
been addressed, proposals will be evaluated on how well they address 
the specific criteria for a possible total score of 10 points.
    In the second phase, each IP will be evaluated against the general 
criteria listed above for a possible total score of 20. Points will be 
taken away for poor past performance if knowledge of applicant's past 
performance is available to EPA. Points from Phase 1 and 2 will be 
added together for a possible total score of 30 points.
    Final selection of IPs will be made by the Director of Water 
Quality Protection Division, EPA Region 6.

VI. Award Administration Information

1. Award Notices

    Selected organizations will be notified in writing and requested to 
submit full applications. Applications, including workplans, are 
subject to EPA review and approval. It is expected that unsuccessful 
applicants will be notified in writing.

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements

    Applicants whose proposals contemplate contracting for services or 
products must comply with applicable regulations relating to 
competitive procurement and preparation of cost or price analyses in 
accordance with 40 CFR 30.40 through 30.48 (for institutions of higher 
learning, hospitals, and other nonprofit organizations) and 40 CFR 
31.36 (for States, local governments, and interstate agencies). 
Identifying a contractor in a proposal does not exempt the applicant 
from these requirements. Applicants requested to submit a full 
application will be required to confirm compliance with competitive 
procurement procedures.
    Additionally, applicants requested to submit a full application 
will be required to comply with the Quality Assurance requirements (40 
CFR 30.54 and 31.45) if projects involve environmentally related 
measurements or data generation. Prior to award, a Quality Management 
Plan must be submitted and approved by EPA.
    Applicants must provide a Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) Data Universal 
Numbering System (DUNS) number with the full application. Organizations 
may obtain the number by calling, toll free, 1-866-705-5711.
    Applicants requested to submit a full application may incur pre-
award costs 90 calendar days prior to award provided such costs are 
included in the application, the costs meet the definition of pre-award 
costs and are approved by EPA. Pre-award costs are those costs incurred 
prior to the effective date of the award directly pursuant to the 
negotiation and in anticipation of the award where such costs are 
necessary to comply with the proposed delivery schedule or period of 
performance and are in conformance with the appropriate statute and 
cost principles. The approval of pre-award costs should be reflected in 
the budget period on the assistance agreement and if applicable, under 
a term and condition of the assistance agreement. Recipients incur pre-
award costs at their own risk (i.e., EPA is under no obligation to 
reimburse such costs if for any reason the recipient does not receive 
an award or if the award is less than anticipated and inadequate to 
cover such costs).
    Procedures for dispute resolution process are located in 40 CFR 
30.63 and 31.70 apply.
    It is encouraged that indirect cost be limited to 15 percent or 
less.

3. Reporting

    Post award reporting requirements include, at a minimum, submission 
of semi-annual project status reports with submission of a final report 
prior to the end of the budget/project period. Means of submission and 
report format will be negotiated in the workplan.

VII. Agency Contacts

    Point of Contact: Terry Mendiola by telephone at 214-665-7144 or by 
e-mail at [email protected].

VIII. Other Information

    A list of selected projects will be posted on the Region 6 Water 
Quality Protection Division, Assistance Programs Branch Web site http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6wq/at/sttribal.htm. This Web site may also 
contain additional information about this request. Deadline extensions, 
if any, will be posted on this Web site and not in the Federal 
Register.

    Dated: February 4, 2004.
James R. Brown,
Acting Director, Water Quality Protection Division, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 04-3091 Filed 2-11-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P