[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 17, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2531-2543]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-408]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8021-6]


Guidelines for Awarding Clean Water Act Section 319 Base Grants 
to Indian Tribes in FY 2006; Request for Proposals From Indian Tribes 
for Competitive Grants Under Clean Water Act Section 319 in FY 2006 
(CFDA 66.460--Nonpoint Source Implementation Grants; Funding 
Opportunity Number EPA-OW-OWOW-06-2)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of guidelines for Section 319 Base Grants and Request 
for Proposals for Section 319 Competitive Grants.

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

SUMMARY: This notice publishes EPA's national guidelines for the award 
of base grants and EPA's Request for Proposals (RFP) for the award of 
supplemental funding in the form of competitive grants under the Clean 
Water Act (CWA) section 319(h) nonpoint source (NPS) grants program to 
Indian Tribes in FY 2006. Section 319 of the CWA authorizes EPA to 
award grants to eligible Tribes for the purpose of assisting them in 
implementing approved NPS management programs developed pursuant to 
section 319(b). The primary goal of the NPS management program is to 
control NPS pollution through implementation of management measures and 
practices to reduce pollutant loadings resulting from each category or 
subcategory of NPSs identified in the Tribe's NPS assessment report 
developed pursuant to section 319(a). EPA intends to award a total of 
$7,000,000 to eligible Tribes which have approved NPS assessments and 
management programs and ``treatment-as-a-state'' (TAS) status as of 
October 14, 2005. EPA expects the allocation of funds will be similar 
to the amount distributed in FY 2005, which included approximately $2.8 
million in base grants awarded to 84 Tribes and $4.2 million awarded to 
31 Tribes through a competitive process. Section A includes

[[Page 2532]]

EPA's national guidelines which govern the process for awarding base 
grants to all eligible Tribes, and section B is the national RFP for 
awarding the remaining funds on a competitive basis.

DATES: This notice is effective January 17, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stacie Craddock, Office of Wetlands, 
Oceans, and Watersheds, Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, 
telephone: (202) 566-1204; fax: (202) 566-1331, e-mail: 
[email protected]. Also contact the appropriate EPA Regional 
Tribal NPS Coordinator identified in section B.VII.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    For the seventh year in a row, Congress has authorized EPA to award 
NPS control grants to Indian Tribes in FY 2006 in an amount that 
exceeds the statutory cap (in section 518(f) of the CWA) of \1/3\ of 1 
percent of the total section 319 appropriation. There is continuing 
recognition that Indian Tribes need increased financial support to 
implement NPS programs that address critical water quality concerns on 
Tribal lands. EPA will continue to work closely with the Tribes to 
assist them in developing and implementing effective Tribal NPS 
pollution programs.
    EPA was pleased by the quality of the Tribes' work plans that 
formed the basis of the grants awarded to Tribes in FY 2005, which 
included approximately $2.8 million in base grants awarded to 84 Tribes 
and $4.2 million awarded to 31 Tribes for specific watershed projects 
through a competitive process. We believe that the FY 2005 grants were 
directed towards high-priority activities that will produce on-the-
ground results that provide improved water quality. We look forward to 
working with Tribes again in FY 2006 to implement successful projects 
addressing the extensive NPS control needs throughout Indian country.

Guidelines for Awarding CWA Section 319 Base Grants to Indian Tribes in 
FY 2006 (See Section A Below)

    Section 319 of the CWA authorizes EPA to award grants to eligible 
Tribes for the purpose of assisting them in implementing approved NPS 
management programs developed pursuant to section 319(b). The primary 
goal of the NPS management program is to control NPS pollution through 
implementation of management measures and practices to reduce pollutant 
loadings resulting from each category or subcategory of NPSs identified 
in the Tribe's NPS assessment report developed pursuant to section 
319(a). EPA will award section 319 base grants to eligible Tribes in 
the amount of $30,000 or $50,000 (depending on land area). Section 319 
base funds may be used for a range of activities that implement the 
Tribe's approved NPS management program, including: Hiring a program 
coordinator; conducting NPS education programs; providing training and 
authorized travel to attend training; updating the NPS management 
program; developing watershed-based plans; and implementing, alone or 
in conjunction with other agencies or other funding sources, watershed-
based plans and on-the-ground watershed projects.

Request for Proposals From Indian Tribes for Competitive Grants Under 
Clean Water Act Section 319 in FY 2006 (See Section B Below)

    Overview Information:
    This RFP is issued pursuant to section 319(h) of the CWA. Section 
319 of the CWA authorizes EPA to award grants to eligible Tribes for 
the purpose of assisting them in implementing approved NPS management 
programs developed pursuant to section 319(b). The primary goal of the 
NPS management program is to control NPS pollution through 
implementation of management measures and practices to reduce pollutant 
loadings resulting from each category or subcategory of NPSs identified 
in the Tribe's NPS assessment report developed pursuant to section 
319(a). EPA has set aside a portion of section 319 funds appropriated 
by Congress for competitive grant awards to Tribes for the purpose of 
funding: (1) The development of watershed-based plans; and/or (2) the 
implementation of watershed projects that implement a watershed-based 
plan; and/or (3) the implementation of other watershed projects not 
implementing a watershed-based plan. Tribes are strongly encouraged to 
submit proposals that develop and/or implement watershed-based plans 
designed to protect unimpaired waters and restore NPS-impaired waters. 
EPA believes that watershed-based plans provide the best means for 
preventing and resolving NPS problems and threats. Watershed-based 
plans provide a coordinating framework for solving water quality 
problems by providing a specific geographic focus, integrating strong 
partnerships, integrating strong science and data, and coordinating 
priority setting and integrated solutions. EPA anticipates awarding 
approximately 30 competitive grants, subject to availability of funds 
and the quality of applications submitted. Eligible Tribes may apply 
for competitive funding by submitting a proposal for up to a maximum 
budget of $150,000 of federal section 319 funding (plus the additional 
required match of the total project cost).
    Federal Agency Name: EPA.
    Funding Opportunity Title: Tribal Nonpoint Source Implementation 
Grants.
    Announcement Type: Request for Proposals.
    Funding Opportunity Number: EPA-OW-OWOW-06-2.
    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 66.460.
    Dates:
    Date EPA uses to determine eligibility to receive competitive 319 
grants. October 14, 2005.
    Deadline for Tribes to submit proposals to Region or electronically 
through grants.gov. March 1, 2006.
    Headquarters notifies Regions/Tribes of selections for competitive 
319 grants. May 5, 2006.
    Tribes submit final grant application to Region for competitive 319 
grants. June 5, 2006.
    Other than the date EPA will use to determine eligibility to 
receive 319 grants, the dates above are the anticipated dates for those 
actions.

    Dated: January 9, 2006.
Benjamin H. Grumbles,
Assistant Administrator for Water.

Section A. Guidelines for Awarding Clean Water Act Section 319 Base 
Grants to Indian Tribes in FY 2006

I. General

    Each eligible Tribe will receive base funding in accordance with 
the following land area scale:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Base
                     Square miles (acres)                        amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than 1,000 sq. mi. (less than 640,000 acres).............   $30,000
Over 1,000 sq. mi. (over 640,000 acres).......................    50,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The land area scale is the same as used in previous years. EPA 
continues to rely upon land area as the deciding factor for allocation 
of funds because NPS pollution is strongly related to land use; thus 
land area is a reasonable factor that generally is highly relevant to 
identifying Tribes with the greatest needs (recognizing that many 
Tribes have needs that significantly exceed available resources).
    Section 319 base funds may be used for a range of activities that 
implement the Tribe's approved NPS management program, including: 
Hiring a program coordinator; conducting NPS education programs; 
providing training and

[[Page 2533]]

authorized travel to attend training; updating the NPS management 
program; developing watershed-based plans; and implementing, alone or 
in conjunction with other agencies or other funding sources, watershed-
based plans and on-the-ground watershed projects. In general, base 
funding should not be used for general assessment activities (e.g., 
monitoring the general status of reservation waters, which may be 
supported with CWA section 106 funding). EPA encourages Tribes to use 
section 319 funding, and explore the use of other funding such as CWA 
section 106 funding, to support project-specific water quality 
monitoring, data management, data analysis, assessment activities, and 
the development of watershed-based plans.

II. Eligibility and Match Requirements

    To be eligible for NPS base grants, a Tribe must: (1) Be federally 
recognized; (2) have an approved NPS assessment report in accordance 
with CWA section 319(a); (3) have an approved NPS management program in 
accordance with CWA section 319(b); and (4) have ``treatment-as-a-
state'' (TAS) status in accordance with CWA section 518(e). To be 
eligible for NPS grants in FY 2006, Tribes must meet these eligibility 
requirements as of October 14, 2005 (as announced in the FY 2005 
guidelines on December 22, 2004 at 69 FR 76733). Tribes should contact 
their EPA Regional Tribal NPS Coordinator for further information about 
the eligibility process (see section B.VII for Agency contact 
information).
    Section 319(h)(3) of the CWA requires that the match for NPS grants 
is 40 percent of the total project cost. In general, as required in 40 
CFR 31.24, the match requirement can be satisfied by any of the 
following: Allowable costs incurred by the grantee, subgrantee, or a 
cost-type contractor, including those allowable costs borne by non-
federal grants; by cash donations from non-federal third parties; or by 
the value of third party in-kind contributions.
    EPA's regulations also provide that EPA may decrease the match 
requirement to as low as ten percent if the Tribe can demonstrate in 
writing to the Regional Administrator that fiscal circumstances within 
the Tribe or within each Tribe that is a member of the intertribal 
consortium are constrained to such an extent that fulfilling the match 
requirement would impose undue hardship (see 40 CFR 35.635). In making 
grant awards to Tribes that provide for a reduced match requirement, 
Regions must include a brief finding in the final award package that 
the Tribe has demonstrated that it does not have adequate funds to meet 
the required match.

III. Application Requirements for Base Allocation Grants

1. Address To Request Application Package for Base Allocation Grants
    Applicants may download individual grant application forms, or 
electronically request a paper application package and an accompanying 
computer CD of information related to applicants/grant recipients roles 
and responsibilities from EPA's Grants Web site by visiting: http://www.epa.gov/ogd/grants/how_to_apply.htm. Please note that only the 
narrative work plan needs to be included in the initial application. If 
your application is approved, a complete application package will need 
to be submitted by June 5, 2006.
2. Content and Form of Application Submission for Base Allocation 
Grants
    Section 319 base funds may be used for a range of activities that 
implement the Tribe's approved NPS management program, including: 
Hiring a program coordinator; conducting NPS education programs; 
providing training and authorized travel to attend training; updating 
the NPS management program; developing watershed-based plans; and 
implementing, alone or in conjunction with other agencies or other 
funding sources, watershed-based plans and on-the-ground watershed 
projects.
    The specific content and form of the application for the award of 
section 319 base grants is as follows:
a. Narrative Work Plan
    Tribes must submit a work plan to receive base funding for FY 2006. 
All work plans must be consistent with the Tribe's approved NPS 
management program and conform to legal requirements that are 
applicable to all environmental program grants awarded to Tribes (see 
40 CFR 35.505 and 35.507) as well as the grant requirements which 
specifically apply to NPS management grants (see 40 CFR 35.638). As 
provided in 40 CFR 35.507, 40 CFR 35.515, and 40 CFR 35.638, all work 
plans must include:

    i. Description of each significant category of NPS activity to 
be addressed;
    ii. Work plan components;
    iii. Work plan commitments for each work plan component;
    iv. Estimated funding amounts for each work plan component;
    v. Estimated work years for each work plan component;
    vi. Roles and responsibilities of the recipient and EPA in 
carrying out the work plan commitments; and
    vii. Reporting schedule and a description of the performance 
evaluation process that will be used that accounts for: (a) A 
discussion of accomplishments as measured against work plan 
commitments; (b) a discussion of the cumulative effectiveness of the 
work performed under all work plan components; (c) a discussion of 
existing and potential problem areas; and (d) suggestions for 
improvement, including, where feasible, schedules for making 
improvements.
b. Work Plan To Develop a Watershed-Based Plan
    If a Tribe submits a work plan to develop a watershed-based plan, 
it must include a commitment to incorporate the nine components of a 
watershed-based plan identified in section A.V.1 below.
c. Work Plan To Implement a Watershed-Based Plan
    If a Tribe submits a work plan to implement a watershed-based plan, 
it must be accompanied by a statement that the Region finds that the 
watershed-based plan to be implemented includes the nine components of 
a watershed-based plan identified in section A.V.1 below.

IV. Submission Dates and Times for Initial Applications for Base 
Funding

    Eligible Tribes must submit to the appropriate EPA Regional Tribal 
NPS Coordinator applications for base funding by 5 p.m. local time on 
March 1, 2006 (see section B.VII for Agency contact information). Each 
EPA Region will review the proposed work plan for base funding and, 
where appropriate, recommend improvements to the plan by March 15, 
2006. The Tribe must submit a final work plan by April 14, 2006. If a 
Tribe has not submitted an approvable work plan for base funding by 
April 14, its allocated amount will be added to the competitive pool 
which will be used to fund Tribal NPS competitive grants (see section 
B).

V. Watershed-Based Plans

    EPA strongly encourages Tribes to use section 319 funding for the 
development and/or implementation of watershed-based plans to protect 
unimpaired waters and restore NPS-impaired waters. EPA also encourages 
Tribes to explore the use of other funding such as CWA section 106 
funding to support the development of watershed-based plans. EPA 
believes that watershed-based plans provide the best means for 
preventing and resolving NPS problems and threats. Watershed-based 
plans provide a coordinating framework for solving water quality 
problems by providing a specific geographic focus, integrating strong 
partnerships,

[[Page 2534]]

integrating strong science and data, and coordinating priority setting 
and integrated solutions. This section outlines the specific 
information that should be included in all watershed-based plans that 
are developed or implemented using section 319 funding. This 
information correlates with the elements of a watershed-based plan 
outlined in the NPS grants guidelines for States (see FY 2004 Nonpoint 
Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories, 
available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/cwact.html). One significant 
difference from the State guidelines is that a watershed-based plan for 
Tribes provides for the integration of ``water quality-based goals'' 
(see element (c) below), whereas the State guidelines call for specific 
estimates of load reductions that are expected to be achieved by 
implementing the plan. EPA has incorporated this flexibility for Tribes 
in recognition that not all Tribes have yet developed water quality 
standards and many Tribes may need additional time and/or technical 
assistance in order to develop more sophisticated estimates of the NPS 
pollutants that need to be addressed. Where such information does 
exist, or is later developed, EPA expects that it will be incorporated 
as appropriate into the watershed-based plan.
    To the extent that information already exists in other documents 
(e.g., NPS assessment reports or NPS management programs), the 
information may be incorporated by reference into the watershed-based 
plan. Thus, the Tribe need not duplicate any existing process or 
document that already provides needed information.
1. Components of a Watershed-Based Plan
    a. An identification of the causes and sources or groups of similar 
sources that will need to be controlled to achieve the goal identified 
in element (c) below. Sources that need to be controlled should be 
identified at the significant subcategory level with estimates of the 
extent to which they are present in the watershed (e.g., X number of 
dairy cattle feedlots needing upgrading, including a rough estimate of 
the number of cattle per facility; Y acres of row crops needing 
improved nutrient management or sediment control; or Z linear miles of 
eroded streambank needing remediation).
    b. A description of the NPS management measures that will need to 
be implemented to achieve a water quality-based goal described in 
element (c) below, as well as to achieve other watershed goals 
identified in the watershed-based plan, and an identification (using a 
map or a description) of the critical areas which those measures will 
be needed to implement the plan.
    c. An estimate of the water quality-based goals expected to be 
achieved by implementing the measures described in element (b) above. 
To the extent possible, estimates should identify specific water 
quality-based goals, which may incorporate, for example: Load 
reductions; water quality standards for one or more pollutants/uses; 
NPS total maximum daily load allocations; measurable, in-stream 
reductions in a pollutant; or improvements in a parameter that 
indicates stream health (e.g., increases in fish or macroinvertebrate 
counts). If information is not available to make specific estimates, 
water quality-based goals may include narrative descriptions and best 
professional judgment based on existing information.
    d. An estimate of the amounts of technical and financial assistance 
needed, associated costs, and/or the sources and authorities that will 
be relied upon to implement the plan. As sources of funding, Tribes 
should consider other relevant Federal, State, local and private funds 
that may be available to assist in implementing the plan.
    e. An information and education component that will be used to 
enhance public understanding and encourage early and continued 
participation in selecting, designing, and implementing the NPS 
management measures that will be implemented.
    f. A schedule for implementing the NPS management measures 
identified in this plan that is reasonably expeditious.
    g. A description of interim, measurable milestones for determining 
whether NPS management measures or other control actions are being 
implemented.
    h. A set of criteria that can be used to determine whether the 
water quality-based goals are being achieved over time and substantial 
progress is being made towards attaining water quality-based goals and, 
if not, the criteria for determining whether the watershed-based plan 
needs to be revised.
    i. A monitoring component to evaluate the effectiveness of the 
implementation efforts over time, measured against the criteria 
established under element (h) above.
    EPA recognizes the difficulty of developing the information 
described above with precision and, as these guidelines reflect, 
believes that there must be a balanced approach to address this 
concern. On one hand, it is absolutely critical that Tribes make, at 
the subcategory level, a reasonable effort to identify the significant 
sources; identify the management measures that will most effectively 
address those sources; and broadly estimate the expected water quality-
based goals that will be achieved. Without such information to provide 
focus and direction, it is much less likely that a project that 
implements the plan can efficiently and effectively address the NPSs of 
water quality impairments. On the other hand, EPA recognizes that even 
with reasonable steps to obtain and analyze relevant data, the 
available information at the planning stage (within reasonable time and 
cost constraints) may be limited; preliminary information and estimates 
may need to be modified over time, accompanied by mid-course 
corrections in the watershed plan; and it often will require a number 
of years of effective implementation to achieve the goals. EPA fully 
intends that the watershed planning process described above should be 
implemented in a dynamic and iterative manner to assure that projects 
implementing the plan may proceed even though some of the information 
in the watershed plan is imperfect and may need to be modified over 
time as information improves.
2. Scale and Scope of Watershed-Based Plans
    The watershed-based plan should address a large enough geographic 
area so that its implementation addresses all of the significant 
sources and causes of impairments and threats to the waterbody in 
question. EPA recognizes that many Tribes may face jurisdictional 
limitations outside reservation boundaries. To the extent possible, EPA 
encourages Tribes to engage other partners and include mixed ownership 
watersheds when appropriate to solve the water quality problems (e.g., 
Tribal, Federal, State, and private lands). While there is no rigorous 
definition or delineation for this concept, the general intent is to 
avoid single segments or other narrowly defined areas that do not 
provide an opportunity for addressing a watershed's stressors in a 
rational and economic manner. At the same time, the scale should not be 
so large as to minimize the probability of successful implementation.
    Once a watershed-based plan that contains the information 
identified above has been established, it can be used as the foundation 
for preparing annual work plans. Like the NPS management program 
approved under section 319(b), a watershed-based plan may be a multi-
year planning document. Whereas the NPS management program

[[Page 2535]]

provides overall program guidance to address NPS pollution on Tribal 
lands, a watershed-based plan focuses NPS planning on a particular 
watershed identified as a priority in the NPS management program. Due 
to the greater specificity of a watershed-based plan, it will generally 
have considerably more detail than a NPS management program, and 
identified portions may be implemented through highly specific annual 
work plans. While the watershed-based plan can be considered a subset 
of the NPS management program, the annual work plan can be considered a 
subset of the watershed-based plan.
    A Tribe may choose to implement the watershed-based plan in 
prioritized portions (e.g., based on particular segments, other 
geographic subdivisions, NPS categories in the watershed, or specific 
pollutants or impairments), consistent with the schedule established 
pursuant to item (f) above. In doing so, Tribes may submit annual work 
plans for section 319 grant funding that implement specific portions of 
the watershed-based plan. A watershed-based plan is a strategic plan 
for long-term success; annual work plans are the specific ``to-do 
lists'' to achieve that long-term success.

VI. Base Grant Requirements

1. Performance Partnership Grants
    Performance Partnership Grants (PPG) enable Tribes to combine funds 
from more than one environmental program grant into a single grant with 
a single budget. If the Tribe includes the section 319 grant as a part 
of an approved PPG, the match requirement may be reduced to 5 percent 
of the allowable cost of the work plan budget for the first 2 years in 
which the Tribe receives a PPG; after 2 years, the match may be 
increased up to 10 percent of the work plan budget (as determined by 
the Regional Administrator). (See 40 CFR 35.536).
    A section 319 base grant awarded under this notice should not be 
included in a PPG unless the work plan upon which a decision is made to 
award the grant is included in the PPG. If a proposed PPG work plan 
differs significantly from the section 319 work plan approved for 
funding, the Regional Administrator must consult with the National 
Program Manager. (See 40 CFR 35.535). The purpose of this requirement 
is to avoid any potential that the project will not ultimately be 
implemented once commingled with other grant programs in a PPG.
2. Intertribal Consortia
    Some Tribes have formed intertribal consortia to promote 
cooperative work. An intertribal consortium is a partnership between 
two or more Tribes that is authorized by the governing bodies of those 
Tribes to apply for and receive assistance under this program. (See 40 
CFR 35.502.) Individual Tribes who are a part of an intertribal 
consortia that is awarded a section 319 base grant may not also be 
awarded an individual section 319 base grant. (Note that individual 
Tribes may still be eligible to apply for competitive funds described 
below in Section B if they do not also submit a proposal for 
competitive funds as part of an intertribal consortium.) The 
intertribal consortium is eligible only if the consortium demonstrates 
that all its members meet the eligibility requirements for the section 
319 program and authorize the consortium to apply for and receive 
assistance in accordance with 40 CFR 35.504. An intertribal consortium 
must submit to EPA adequate documentation of the existence of the 
partnership and the authorization of the consortium by its members to 
apply for and receive the grant. (See 40 CFR 35.504.)
3. Non-Tribal Lands
    The following discussion explains the extent to which section 319 
grants may be awarded to Tribes for use outside the reservation. We 
discuss two types of off-reservation activities: (1) Activities that 
are related to waters within a reservation, such as those relating to 
sources upstream of a waterway entering the reservation; and (2) 
activities that are unrelated to waters of a reservation. As discussed 
below, the first type of these activities may be eligible; the second 
is not.
a. Activities That Are Related to Waters Within a Reservation
    Section 518(e) of the CWA provides that EPA may treat an Indian 
Tribe as a State for purposes of section 319 of the CWA if, among other 
things, ``the functions to be exercised by the Indian Tribe pertain to 
the management and protection of water resources which are * * * within 
the borders of an Indian reservation'' (see 33 U.S.C. 1377(e)(2)). EPA 
already awards grants to Tribes under section 106 of the CWA for 
activities performed outside of a reservation (on condition that the 
Tribe obtains any necessary access agreements and coordinates with the 
State, as appropriate) that pertain to reservation waters, such as 
evaluating impacts of upstream waters on water resources within a 
reservation. Similarly, EPA has awarded section 106 grants to States to 
conduct monitoring outside of State borders. EPA has concluded that 
grants awarded to an Indian Tribe pursuant to section 319 may similarly 
be used to perform eligible section 319 activities outside of a 
reservation if: (1) The activity pertains to the management and 
protection of waters within a reservation; and (2) just as for on-
reservation activities, the Tribe meets all other applicable 
requirements.
b. Activities That Are Unrelated to Waters of a Reservation
    As discussed above, EPA is authorized to award section 319 grants 
to Tribes to perform eligible section 319 activities if the activities 
pertain to the management and protection of waters within a reservation 
and the Tribe meets all other applicable requirements. In contrast, EPA 
is not authorized to award section 319 grants for activities that do 
not pertain to waters of a reservation. For off-reservation areas, 
including ``usual and accustomed'' hunting, fishing, and gathering 
places, EPA must determine whether the activities pertain to waters of 
a reservation prior to awarding a grant.
4. Administrative Costs
    Pursuant to CWA section 319(h)(12), administrative costs in the 
form of salaries, overhead, or indirect costs for services provided and 
charged against activities and programs carried out with the grant 
shall not exceed 10 percent of the grant award. The costs of 
implementing enforcement and regulatory activities, education, 
training, technical assistance, demonstration projects, and technology 
transfer are not subject to this limitation.
5. Satisfactory Progress
    For a Tribe (or intertribal consortium) that received section 319 
funds in the preceding fiscal year, section 319(h)(8) of the CWA 
requires that the Region determine whether the Tribe made 
``satisfactory progress'' during the previous fiscal year in meeting 
the schedule of activities specified in its approved NPS management 
program. The Region will base this determination on an examination of 
Tribal activities, reports, reviews, and other documents and 
discussions with the Tribe in the previous year. Regions must include 
in each section 319 base funding allocation (or in a separate document, 
such as the grant-issuance cover letter, that is signed by the same EPA 
official who signs the grant), a written determination that the Tribe 
has made satisfactory progress during the previous fiscal year in 
meeting the schedule of milestones

[[Page 2536]]

specified in its NPS management program. The Regions must include brief 
explanations that support their determinations.

VII. Technical Assistance to Tribes

    In addition to providing NPS grant funding to Tribes, EPA remains 
committed to providing continued technical assistance to Tribes in 
their efforts to control NPS pollution. During the past nine years, EPA 
has presented many workshops to Tribes nationwide to assist them in 
developing: (1) NPS assessments to further their understanding of NPS 
pollution and its impact on water quality; (2) NPS management programs 
to apply solutions to address their NPS problems; and (3) specific 
projects to effect on-the-ground solutions. The workshops have provided 
information on related EPA and other programs that can help Tribes 
address NPSs, including the provision of technical and funding 
assistance. Other areas of technical assistance include watershed-based 
planning, water quality monitoring, section 305(b) reports on water 
quality, and section 303(d) lists of impaired waters. EPA intends to 
continue providing NPS workshops to interested Tribes in FY 2006 and to 
provide other appropriate technical assistance as needed. EPA also 
intends to include special emphasis in the workshops on the development 
and implementation of watershed-based plans that are designed to 
address on-the-ground water quality improvements.

VIII. Anticipated Deadlines and Milestones for FY 2006 Base Grants

    Date for Tribes to be eligible for 319 grants. October 14, 2005.
    Tribes submit base grant initial application to Region. March 1, 
2006 (anticipated).
    Region comments on Tribe's base grant work plan. March 15, 2006 
(anticipated).
    Tribes submit final base grant work plan to Region. April 14, 2006 
(anticipated).
    Tribes submit final grant application to Region. June 5, 2006 
(anticipated).
    Other than the date EPA will use to determine eligibility to 
receive 319 grants, the dates above are the anticipated dates for those 
actions.

IX. Anticipated Deadlines and Milestones for FY 2007 Base Grants

    Beginning in FY 2007, the schedule for submitting work plans and 
awarding section 319 base grants will be modified to expedite the grant 
awards process. These modifications are intended to ensure that award 
decisions are made earlier in the fiscal year to provide adequate time 
for Tribes to implement projects within the applicable fiscal year.
    Date for Tribes to be eligible for 319 grants. October 13, 2006.
    Tribes submit base grant initial application to Region. December 1, 
2006 (anticipated).
    Region comments on Tribe's base grant work plan. December 15, 2006 
(anticipated).
    Tribes submit final base grant work plan to Region. January 16, 
2007 (anticipated).
    Tribes submit final grant application to Region. April 5, 2007 
(anticipated).
    Other than the date EPA will use to determine eligibility to 
receive 319 grants, the dates above are the anticipated dates for those 
actions.

Section B. Request for Proposals From Indian Tribes for Competitive 
Grants under Clean Water Act Section 319 in FY 2006 (Funding 
Opportunity Number EPA-OW-OWOW-06-2)

I. Funding Opportunity Description for Competitive Grants

    This RFP is issued pursuant to section 319(h) of the Clean Water 
Act (CWA). Section 319 of the CWA authorizes EPA to award grants to 
eligible Tribes for the purpose of assisting them in implementing 
approved nonpoint source (NPS) management programs developed pursuant 
to section 319(b). The primary goal of the NPS management program is to 
control NPS pollution through implementation of management measures and 
practices to reduce pollutant loadings resulting from each category or 
subcategory of NPSs identified in the Tribe's NPS assessment report 
developed pursuant to section 319(a). EPA has set aside a portion of 
the section 319 funds appropriated by Congress for competitive grant 
awards to Tribes for the purpose of funding: (1) The development of 
watershed-based plans; and/or (2) the implementation of watershed 
projects that implement a watershed-based plan; and/or (3) the 
implementation of other watershed projects not implementing a 
watershed-based plan. Tribes are strongly encouraged to submit 
proposals that develop and/or implement watershed-based plans designed 
to protect unimpaired waters and restore NPS-impaired waters.
    Grants awarded under this RFP will advance the protection and 
improvement of water quality in support of Goal 2 (Clean and Safe 
Water), Objective 2 (Protect Water Quality), Sub-objective 1 (Protect 
and Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis) of EPA's Strategic Plan 
(see http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/plan.htm). In support of Sub-
objective 2.2.1, and consistent with EPA Order 5700.7 on Environmental 
Results under EPA Assistance Agreements (see http://www.epa.gov/ogd/grants/award/5700.7.pdf), grants awarded under this RFP will be 
expected to accomplish various environmental outcomes and outputs as 
described below. Applicants must discuss anticipated environmental 
outcomes and outputs in proposed work plan objectives and performance 
measures.
    Expected environmental outcomes mean 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 environmental, behavioral, health-related or 
programmatic in nature, must be quantitative, and may not necessarily 
be achieved within an assistance agreement funding period. Examples of 
outcomes from the grants to be awarded under this RFP may include but 
are not limited to: an increased number of NPS-impaired waterbodies 
that have been partially or fully restored to meet water quality 
standards or other water quality-based goals established by the Tribes; 
and/or an increased number of waterbodies that have been protected from 
NPS pollution.
    Expected environmental outputs (or deliverables) refer to an 
environmental activity, effort, and/or associated work product related 
to an environmental goal or objective, that will be produced or 
provided over a period of time or by a specified date. Outputs may be 
quantitative or qualitative but must be measurable during an assistance 
agreement funding period. Examples of environmental outputs under the 
grants awarded under this RFP may include but are not limited to: a 
watershed-based plan, progress reports, or a particular number of on-
the-ground management measures or practices installed or implemented 
during the project period. Including the environmental output of a 
watershed-based plan furthers progress towards achieving the specific 
indicator measure for Sub-objective 2.2.1 in EPA's Strategic Plan which 
measures the number of Tribes that have developed and begun to 
implement a watershed-based plan for Tribal waters (see Measure WQ-28, 
EPA's National Water Program Guidance for FY 2006 at http://www.epa.gov/water/waterplan/#nwp06).

[[Page 2537]]

II. Award Information

    In FY 2005, EPA awarded approximately $4.2 million to 31 Tribes for 
specific watershed projects through a competitive process. EPA expects 
that the amount of competitive funding available in FY 2006 will be 
similar or slightly lower than the amount available in FY 2005, since 
the availability of competitive funding is dependent, in part, upon the 
amount of funding that remains after a portion is first distributed as 
base grants to all eligible Tribes (which may increase due to 
additional Tribes entering the NPS program).
    EPA anticipates awarding approximately 30 competitive grants, 
subject to availability of funds and the quality of applications 
submitted under this RFP. Eligible Tribes may apply for competitive 
funding by submitting a proposal up to a maximum budget of $150,000 of 
federal section 319 funding (plus the additional required match of the 
total project cost). Proposals evaluated, but not selected for this 
funding, may be retained for consideration for possible future awards 
if additional funding materializes. Any additional selections for award 
under this RFP based on additional funding will be in accordance with 
the rankings developed by the review Committee (discussed below in 
section B.V.2) and must be made within six months of the original 
competitive funding decisions.
    EPA reserves the right to make partial awards by funding discrete 
activities, portions, or phases of the proposal. If EPA decides to 
partially fund the proposal, it will do so in a manner that does not 
prejudice any applicants or affect the basis upon which the proposal/
application, or portion thereof, was evaluated and selected for award, 
and that maintains the integrity of the competition and the evaluation/
selection process.

III. Eligibility Information

1. Eligible Applicants
    To be eligible for NPS grants, a Tribe or intertribal consortium 
must: (1) Be federally recognized; (2) have an approved NPS assessment 
report in accordance with CWA section 319(a); (3) have an approved NPS 
management program in accordance with CWA section 319(b); and (4) have 
``treatment-as-a-state'' (TAS) status in accordance with CWA section 
518(e). To be eligible for NPS grants in FY 2006, Tribes must meet 
these eligibility requirements as of October 14, 2005.
    Some Tribes have formed intertribal consortia to promote 
cooperative work. An intertribal consortium is a partnership between 
two or more Tribes that is authorized by the governing bodies of those 
Tribes to apply for and receive assistance under this program. (See 40 
CFR 35.502.) Individual Tribes who are a part of an intertribal 
consortia that is awarded a section 319 competitive grant may not also 
be awarded an individual section competitive 319 grant. (Note that 
individual Tribes may still be eligible to apply for base funds 
described above in Section A if they do not also submit a proposal for 
base funds as part of an intertribal consortium.)
    The intertribal consortium is eligible only if the consortium 
demonstrates that all its members meet the eligibility requirements for 
the section 319 program and authorize the consortium to apply for and 
receive assistance in accordance with 40 CFR 35.504. An intertribal 
consortium must submit to EPA adequate documentation of the existence 
of the partnership and the authorization of the consortium by its 
members to apply for and receive the grant. (See 40 CFR 35.504.)
2. Cost Sharing or Matching
    Section 319(h)(3) of the CWA requires that the match for NPS grants 
is 40 percent of the total project cost. In general, as required in 40 
CFR 31.24, the match requirement can be satisfied by any of the 
following: Allowable costs incurred by the grantee, subgrantee, or a 
cost-type contractor, including those allowable costs borne by non-
federal grants; by cash donations from non-federal third parties; or by 
the value of third party in-kind contributions.
    EPA's regulations also provide that EPA may decrease the match 
requirement to as low as ten percent if the Tribe can demonstrate in 
writing to the Regional Administrator that fiscal circumstances within 
the Tribe or within each Tribe that is a member of the intertribal 
consortium are constrained to such an extent that fulfilling the match 
requirement would impose undue hardship. (See 40 CFR 35.635.) In making 
grant awards to Tribes that provide for a reduced match requirement, 
Regions must include a brief finding in the final award package that 
the Tribe has demonstrated that it does not have adequate funds to meet 
the required match.
    Performance Partnership Grants (PPG) enable Tribes to combine funds 
from more than one environmental program grant into a single grant with 
a single budget. If the Tribe includes the section 319 competitive 
grant as a part of an approved PPG, the match requirement may be 
reduced to 5 percent of the allowable cost of the work plan budget for 
the first 2 years in which the Tribe receives a PPG; after 2 years, the 
match may be increased up to 10 percent of the work plan budget (as 
determined by the Regional Administrator). (See 40 CFR 35.536).
    A section 319 grant awarded under this RFP should not be included 
in a PPG unless the work plan upon which a decision is made to award 
the competitive grant is included in the PPG. If a proposed PPG work 
plan differs significantly from the section 319 work plan approved for 
funding under this RFP, the Regional Administrator must consult with 
the National Program Manager. (See 40 CFR 35.535). The purpose of this 
requirement is to avoid any potential that the project will not 
ultimately be implemented once commingled with other grant programs in 
a PPG.
3. Threshold Evaluation Criteria
    In addition to applicant eligibility and cost-share (discussed 
above in sections B.III.1 and B.III.2, respectively), all of the 
following additional threshold evaluation criteria must be met in order 
for a Tribe's application to be evaluated under section B.V and be 
considered for award.
    a. An individual Tribe (or intertribal consortium) may not be 
awarded competitive funding for more than one competitive grant 
proposal in a given year.
    b. An individual Tribe (or intertribal consortium) may apply for 
competitive funding by submitting a proposal up to a maximum budget of 
$150,000 of federal section 319 funding (plus the additional required 
match of the total project cost). If a Tribe submits a proposal that 
exceeds $150,000 (of federal section 319 funding), it will be rejected 
from further consideration.
    c. All applications must propose to fund activities that are 
related to waters within a reservation or they will be rejected. 
Section 319 grants may be awarded to Tribes for use outside the 
reservation only if they fund activities that are related to waters 
within a reservation, such as those relating to sources upstream of a 
waterway entering the reservation.
i. Activities That Are Related to Waters Within a Reservation
    Section 518(e) of the CWA provides that EPA may treat an Indian 
Tribe as a State for purposes of section 319 of the CWA if, among other 
things, ``the functions to be exercised by the Indian Tribe pertain to 
the management and protection of water resources which are * * * within 
the borders of an Indian reservation'' (see 33 U.S.C. 1377(e)(2)).

[[Page 2538]]

EPA already awards grants to Tribes under section 106 of the CWA for 
activities performed outside of a reservation (on condition that the 
Tribe obtains any necessary access agreements and coordinates with the 
State, as appropriate) that pertain to reservation waters, such as 
evaluating impacts of upstream waters on water resources within a 
reservation. Similarly, EPA has awarded section 106 grants to States to 
conduct monitoring outside of State borders. EPA has concluded that 
grants awarded to an Indian Tribe pursuant to section 319 may similarly 
be used to perform eligible section 319 activities outside of a 
reservation if: (1) The activity pertains to the management and 
protection of waters within a reservation; and (2) just as for on-
reservation activities, the Tribe meets all other applicable 
requirements.
ii. Activities That Are Unrelated to Waters of a Reservation
    As discussed above, EPA is authorized to award section 319 grants 
to Tribes to perform eligible section 319 activities if the activities 
pertain to the management and protection of waters within a reservation 
and the Tribe meets all other applicable requirements. In contrast, EPA 
is not authorized to award section 319 grants for activities that do 
not pertain to waters of a reservation. For off-reservation areas, 
including ``usual and accustomed'' hunting, fishing, and gathering 
places, EPA must determine whether the activities pertain to waters of 
a reservation prior to awarding a grant.
    d. All work plans must be consistent with the Tribe's approved NPS 
management program and conform to legal requirements that are 
applicable to all environmental program grants awarded to Tribes (see 
40 CFR 35.505 and 35.507) as well as the legal requirements that 
specifically apply to NPS management grants (see 40 CFR 35.638). As 
provided in those regulations, all proposed work plans must include:

    i. Description of each significant category of NPS activity to 
be addressed;
    ii. Work plan components;
    iii. Work plan commitments for each work plan component, 
including anticipated environmental outcomes and outputs (as 
required by EPA Order 5700.7) and the applicant's plan for tracking 
and measuring its progress towards achieving the expected outcomes 
and outputs identified in Section B.I of this RFP;
    iv. Estimated funding amounts for each work plan component;
    v. Estimated work years for each work plan component;
    vi. Roles and responsibilities of the recipient and EPA in 
carrying out the work plan commitments; and
    vii. Reporting schedule and a description of the performance 
evaluation process that will be used that accounts for: (a) A 
discussion of accomplishments as measured against work plan 
commitments and anticipated environmental outcomes and outputs; (b) 
a discussion of the cumulative effectiveness of the work performed 
under all work plan components; (c) a discussion of existing and 
potential problem areas; and (d) suggestions for improvement, 
including, where feasible, schedules for making improvements.

IV. Application and Submission Information

    EPA will respond to questions from individual applicants regarding 
threshold eligibility criteria, administrative issues related to the 
submission of the proposal/application, and requests for clarification 
about the announcement. Questions must be submitted before February 15, 
2006 in writing to the appropriate EPA Regional Tribal NPS Coordinator 
and written responses will be posted on EPA's Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/tribal. In accordance with EPA's Competition 
Policy (EPA Order 5700.5A1), EPA staff will not meet with individual 
applicants to discuss draft proposals, provide informal comments on 
draft proposals, or provide advice to applicants on how to respond to 
ranking criteria. Applicants are responsible for the contents of their 
applications.
1. Address To Request Application Package
    Applicants may download individual grant application forms, or 
electronically request a paper application package and an accompanying 
computer CD of information related to applicants/grant recipients roles 
and responsibilities from EPA's Grants Web site by visiting: http://www.epa.gov/ogd/grants/how_to_apply.htm. Applicants may also apply 
electronically through http://www.grants.gov as explained below.
2. Content and Form of Application Submission
    Please note that only the one-page Standard Form 424 needs to be 
included in the initial application, along with the work plan narrative 
described in this RFP. If your application is selected, the entire 
grants package will need to be completed by June 5, 2006.
a. Signed Standard Form 424 (one page)
b. Narrative Work Plan
    Tribes must submit a work plan following the required outline above 
in section B.III.3.d to be considered for competitive funding for FY 
2006.
3. Submission Dates and Times for Proposals for Competitive Funding
    You may submit either a paper proposal or an electronic proposal 
through http://www.grants.gov (but not both) for this announcement. If 
you submit a paper application, the appropriate EPA Regional Tribal NPS 
Coordinator must receive the SF 424 and proposed work plan described 
above for competitive funding by 5 p.m. local time on March 1, 2006 
(see section B.VII for Agency contact information). If you submit your 
application electronically through http://www.grants.gov, you must meet 
the requirements for electronic submission outlined in section B.IV.6 
below and your proposal must be received through http://www.grants.gov 
no later than 11:59 p.m. on March 1, 2006. Any application packages 
received after the due date will not be considered for funding.
4. Funding Restrictions
    The use of competitive funding for the development of a watershed-
based plan will be limited to 20 percent of the competitive award 
(e.g., up to $30,000 of a $150,000 grant) to assure that these 
competitive funds are primarily focused on implementation activities. 
If a Tribe submits a work plan to develop a watershed-based plan, it 
must be submitted as a component of the overall work plan for 
implementing a watershed project (i.e., a Tribe will not receive 
competitive funding only for the development of a watershed-based 
plan).
5. Confidential Business Information
    In accordance with 40 CFR 2.203, applicants may claim all or a 
portion of their application/proposal as confidential business 
information. EPA will evaluate confidentiality claims in accordance 
with 40 CFR Part 2. Applicants must clearly mark applications/proposals 
or portions of applications/proposals they claim as confidential. If no 
claim of confidentiality is made, EPA is not required to make the 
inquiry to the applicant otherwise required by 40 CFR 2.204(c)(2) prior 
to disclosure.
6. Submission Instructions for Electronic Applications Using Grants.gov
    In lieu of hard copy submission, you may submit the proposal 
described above electronically through http://www.grants.gov as 
explained below. The electronic submission of your proposal

[[Page 2539]]

must be made by an official representative of your institution who is 
registered with Grants.gov. For more information, go to http://www.grants.gov and click on ``Get Started,'' and then ``For AORs'' 
(Authorized Organizational Representative) on the left side of the 
page. Note that the registration process may take a week or longer to 
complete. If your organization is not currently registered with 
Grants.gov, please encourage your office to designate an AOR and ask 
that individual to begin the registration process as soon as possible.
    To begin the application process for this grant program, go to 
http://www.grants.gov and click on ``Apply for Grants.'' Then click on 
``Apply Step 1: Download a Grant Application Package and Application 
Instructions'' to download the PureEdge viewer and obtain the 
application package (https://www.apply.grants.gov/forms_apps_idx.html). You may retrieve the application package by entering either 
the CFDA number of 66.460 or Funding Opportunity Number EPA-OW-OWOW-06-
2 in the space provided. You may also be able to access the application 
package by clicking on the button at the bottom right side of the 
synopsis on http://www.grants.gov that says ``Apply for Grants 
Electronically.''
    Your organization's AOR must submit your complete proposal 
electronically to EPA through Grants.gov (http://www.grants.gov) no 
later than 11:59 p.m. on March 1, 2006. The application package must 
include the following materials:
a. Signed Standard Form 424
    Complete the form. There are no attachments. Please be sure to 
include organization fax number and e-mail address in Block 5 of the 
Standard Form 424.
b. Narrative Work Plan
    The work plan must include the minimum components set forth in 
section B.III.3.d of this RFP and will be evaluated based on the 
selection criteria set forth below in section B.V.1 of this 
announcement. Applicants who elect to use http://www.grants.gov to 
apply will need to refer to section B.III.3.d of this RFP when 
preparing the work plan.
    Documents a and b listed above should appear in the ``Mandatory 
Documents'' box on the Grants.gov Grant Application page.
    For Document a, click on the SF424 form and then click ``Open 
Form'' below the box. The fields that must be completed will be 
highlighted in yellow. Optional fields and completed fields will be 
displayed in white. If you enter an invalid response or incomplete 
information in a field, you will receive an error message. When you 
have finished filling out the form, click ``Save.'' When you return to 
the electronic Grant Application Package page, click on the form you 
just completed, and then click on the box that says, ``Move Form to 
Submission List.'' This action will move the document over to the box 
that says, ``Mandatory Completed Documents for Submission.''
    For document b, you will need to attach electronic files containing 
the information required by section B.III.3.d of this RFP. Prepare your 
work plan and save it to your computer as an MS Word, PDF, or 
WordPerfect file. When you are ready to attach your work plan to the 
application package, click on ``Project Narrative Attachment Form,'' 
and open the form. Click ``Add Mandatory Project Narrative File,'' and 
then attach your work plan (previously saved to your computer) using 
the browse window that appears. You may then click ``View Mandatory 
Project Narrative File Filename;'' the file name should be no more than 
40 characters long. If there are other attachments that you would like 
to submit to accompany your proposal, you may click ``Add Optional 
Project Narrative File'' and proceed as before. When you have finished 
attaching the necessary documents, click ``Close Form.'' When you 
return to the ``Grant Application Package'' page, select the ``Project 
Narrative Attachment Form'' and click ``Move Form to Submission List.'' 
The form should now appear in the box that says, ``Mandatory Completed 
Documents for Submission.''
    Once you have finished filling out all of the forms/attachments and 
they appear in one of the ``Completed Documents for Submission'' boxes, 
click the ``Save'' button that appears at the top of the Web page. It 
is suggested that you save the document a second time, using a 
different name, since this will make it easier to submit an amended 
package later if necessary. Please use the following format when saving 
your file: ``Applicant Name--FY06 Tribal 319 Competitive Grants--1st 
Submission'' or ``Applicant Name--FY06 Tribal 319 Competitive Grants--
Back-up Submission.'' If it becomes necessary to submit an amended 
package at a later date, then the name of the 2nd submission should be 
changed to ``Applicant Name--FY06 Tribal 319 Competitive Grants--2nd 
Submission.''
    Once your application package has been completed and saved, send it 
to your AOR for submission to U.S. EPA through Grants.gov. Please 
advise your AOR to close all other software programs before attempting 
to submit the application package through Grants.gov.
    In the ``Application Filing Name'' box, your AOR should enter your 
organization's name (abbreviate where possible), the fiscal year (e.g., 
FY06), and the grant category (e.g., Tribal 319 Grants). The filing 
name should not exceed 40 characters. From the ``Grant Application 
Package'' page, your AOR may submit the application package by clicking 
the ``Submit'' button that appears at the top of the page. The AOR will 
then be asked to verify the agency and funding opportunity number for 
which the application package is being submitted. If problems are 
encountered during the submission process, the AOR should reboot his/
her computer before trying to submit the application package again. [It 
may be necessary to turn off the computer (not just restart it) before 
attempting to submit the package again.] If the AOR continues to 
experience submission problems, he/she may contact Grants.gov for 
assistance by phone at 1-800-518-4726 or e-mail at grants.gov">support@grants.gov.
    If you have not received a confirmation of receipt from EPA (not 
from [email protected]) within 30 days of the application deadline, 
please contact the appropriate EPA Regional Tribal NPS Coordinator 
identified in section B.VII below. Failure to do so may result in your 
application not being reviewed.

V. Application Review Information

1. Selection Criteria for Competitive Grants
    Tribes submitting proposals for competitive grants must comply with 
all of the threshold evaluation criteria described in section B.III.3 
in order to be considered for further evaluation under this section. 
The EPA Regional Tribal NPS Coordinator will determine whether the 
proposals comply with the threshold evaluation criteria, and will 
forward proposals that do to EPA Headquarters NPS Control Branch for 
distribution to EPA's Watershed Project Review Committee. Proposals 
that do not comply with the threshold evaluation criteria will be 
rejected and not evaluated under this section.
    EPA's Watershed Project Review Committee will evaluate proposals by 
assigning a value of 0 to 5 (with 5 being highest) for each factor 
described below based upon how well the following list of specific 
elements are represented in the work plan. Each factor has been 
assigned a specific weight which will be

[[Page 2540]]

multiplied (by a value of 0-5) to calculate a total point score for the 
particular factor. The scores for each factor are then combined to 
result in a total score for the overall work plan--the total maximum 
score available is 900.
    EPA's Watershed Project Review Committee will evaluate proposals 
for competitive grants based upon the following evaluation factors (and 
corresponding weights):
    a. The extent, and quality, to which the subcategories of NPS 
pollution are identified and described. (Weight = 20; 100 points 
maximum.)
    The work plan will be evaluated based upon the extent, and quality, 
to which it identifies each significant subcategory of NPS pollution. 
Since identifying the categories of NPS pollution (e.g., agriculture) 
is a threshold evaluation criteria, the proposed work plan will be 
evaluated based upon how well it identifies sources at the subcategory 
level with estimates of the extent to which these subcategories are 
present in the watershed (e.g., X number of dairy cattle feedlots 
needing upgrading, including a rough estimate of the number of cattle 
per facility; Y acres of row crops needing improved nutrient management 
or sediment control; or Z linear miles of eroded streambank needing 
remediation).
    b. The extent, and quality, to which the water quality problems or 
threats to be addressed are identified and described. (Weight = 20; 100 
points maximum.)
    The work plan will be evaluated based upon the extent, and quality, 
to which it identifies each water quality problem or threat to be 
addressed caused by the subcategories of NPS pollution identified in 
evaluation factor (a) above. EPA encourages Tribes to incorporate 
specific descriptions of water quality problems or threats, for 
example, in relation to impairments to water quality standards or other 
parameters that indicate stream health (e.g., decreases in fish or 
macroinvertebrate counts).
    c. The extent, and quality, to which the goals and objectives of 
the project specifically identify the project location and activities 
to be implemented. (Weight = 20; 100 points maximum.)
    The work plan will be evaluated based upon how well it specifically 
identifies where the NPS project will take place and the waterbody 
affected by the NPS pollutants (provides map); and the level of detail 
provided in relation to the specific activities that will be implement 
(e.g., identifies specific management measures and practices to be 
implemented).
    d. The extent to which significant water quality benefits will be 
achieved as a result of the project. (Weight = 20; 100 points maximum.)
    The work plan will be evaluated based upon the extent to which it 
describes how significant water quality benefits will be achieved as a 
result of the project, either through restoring NPS-impaired waters or 
addressing threats to unimpaired waters. EPA encourages Tribes to 
incorporate specific water quality-based goals that are linked to: Load 
reductions; water quality standards for one or more pollutants/uses; 
NPS total maximum daily load allocations; measurable, in-stream 
reductions in a pollutant; or improvements in a parameter that 
indicates stream health (e.g., increases in fish or macroinvertebrate 
counts). If information is not available to make specific estimates, 
water quality-based goals may include narrative descriptions and best 
professional judgment based on existing information.
    e. The specificity of the budget in relation to each work plan 
component. (Weight = 15; 75 points maximum.)
    The work plan will be evaluated based upon the level of specificity 
of the budget in relation to each work plan component, and the extent 
to which it outlines the total operational and construction costs of 
the project (including match). Budget categories may include, but are 
not limited to, the following items: personnel; travel; equipment; 
supplies; contractual; and construction costs.
    f. The level of detail in relation to the schedule for achieving 
the activities identified in the work plan. (Weight = 15; 75 points 
maximum.)
    The work plan will be evaluated based upon the level of detail and 
clarity that it includes in relation to the schedule of activities for 
each work plan component. Such information includes, but is not limited 
to, the following: identifies a specific ``start'' and ``end'' date for 
each work plan component; an estimate of the specific work years for 
each work plan component; and interim milestone dates for achieving 
each work plan component. A proposal that includes a schedule that can 
be implemented with minimal delay upon the award of the grant (i.e., 
indicates a ``readiness to proceed'') will score higher than proposals 
which may require significant further action before the project can be 
implemented.
    g. The extent to which the roles and responsibilities of the 
recipient and project partners in carrying out the work plan activities 
are specifically identified. (Weight = 15; 75 points maximum.)
    The work plan will be evaluated based upon how specifically and 
clearly it defines the roles and responsibilities of each responsible 
party in relation to each work plan component, which may include, but 
is not limited to, the following: defining the specific level of effort 
for the responsible parties for each work plan component; identifying 
parties who will take the lead in carrying out the work plan 
commitments; and identifying other programs, parties, and agencies that 
will provide additional technical and/or financial assistance.
    h. The extent to which the performance evaluation process includes 
specific, measurable, and objective factors that are clearly linked to 
specific work plan activities throughout the project period and the 
anticipated environmental outcomes and outputs. (Weight = 15; 75 points 
maximum.)
    The work plan will be evaluated based on the extent to which the 
performance evaluation process includes specific, measurable, and 
objective factors that are clearly linked to specific work plan 
activities throughout the project period and how clearly it tracks and 
measures progress towards achieving the expected outcomes and outputs 
identified in Section B.I.
    i. The extent, and quality, to which the proposal addresses one of 
the following four factors (for factors 1, 2, and 3 the applicant must 
include the information described in Attachment A in its work plan). 
(Weight = 40; 200 points maximum.)
    1: The proposed work plan develops a watershed-based plan and 
implements a watershed-based plan.
    If a work plan includes a plan to develop a watershed-based plan, 
it will be evaluated based on the extent to which it: Includes a 
commitment to incorporate the nine components of a watershed-based plan 
described in Attachment A; clearly identifies the geographical coverage 
of the watershed; includes a specific schedule for developing the 
watershed-based plan; and clearly identifies the estimated funds that 
will be used to develop the watershed-based plan (not to exceed 20 
percent of the overall competitive grant).
    If a Tribe submits a work plan to implement a watershed-based plan, 
it will be evaluated based on the extent to which it: Is accompanied by 
a statement that the Region finds that the watershed-based plan to be 
implemented includes the nine components of a watershed-

[[Page 2541]]

based plan identified in Attachment A; identifies and briefly 
summarizes the watershed-based plan that will be implemented; and 
describes how the proposed work plan will make progress towards 
achieving the overall goals of the watershed-based plan and the 
specific water quality-based goals identified in the watershed-based 
plan.
    2: The proposed work plan develops a watershed-based plan and 
implements a watershed project (that does not implement a watershed-
based plan).
    If a work plan includes a plan to develop a watershed-based plan, 
it will be evaluated based on the extent to which it: Includes a 
commitment to incorporate the nine components of a watershed-based plan 
described in Attachment A; clearly identifies the geographical coverage 
of the watershed; includes a specific schedule for developing the 
watershed-based plan; and clearly identifies the estimated funds that 
will be used to develop the watershed-based plan (not to exceed 20 
percent of the overall competitive grant).
    If a work plan is designed to implement a watershed project that is 
not implementing a watershed-based plan, it will be evaluated based on 
the extent to which it can be linked to or expanded upon to address NPS 
impairments or threats on a watershed-wide basis. For example, a work 
plan that sets a precedent for future implementation on a watershed-
basis will be ranked higher than a work plan that implements an 
individual demonstration project designed to address an individual 
threat or problem.
    3: The proposed work plan implements a watershed-based plan.
    If a Tribe submits a work plan to implement a watershed-based plan, 
it will be evaluated based on the extent to which it: Is accompanied by 
a statement that the Region finds that the watershed-based plan to be 
implemented includes the nine components of a watershed-based plan 
identified in Attachment A; identifies and briefly summarizes the 
watershed-based plan that will be implemented; and describes how the 
proposed work plan will make progress towards achieving the overall 
goals of the watershed-based plan and the specific water quality-based 
goals identified in the watershed-based plan.
    4: The proposed work plan implements a watershed project that is a 
significant step towards solving NPS impairments or threats on a 
watershed-wide basis.
    If a work plan is designed to implement a watershed project that is 
not implementing a watershed-based plan, it will be evaluated based on 
the extent to which can be linked to or expanded upon to address NPS 
impairments or threats on a watershed-wide basis. For example, a work 
plan that sets a precedent for future implementation on a watershed-
basis will be ranked higher than a work plan that implements an 
individual demonstration project designed to address an individual 
threat or problem.
2. Review and Selection Process for Competitive Funding
    The EPA Regional Tribal NPS Coordinators will determine whether the 
proposals comply with the threshold evaluation criteria described in 
section B.III.3, and will forward those proposals that meet the 
threshold evaluation criteria to EPA Headquarters NPS Control Branch by 
approximately March 15, 2006.
    EPA will establish a Watershed Project Review Committee (Committee) 
comprised of nine EPA staff, including three EPA Regional State NPS 
Coordinators, three EPA Regional Tribal NPS Coordinators, two staff 
members of the EPA Headquarters NPS Control Branch, and one staff 
member of EPA's American Indian Environmental Office.
    EPA Headquarters NPS Control Branch will forward copies of the 
proposed work plans for competitive funding to the Committee and hold a 
conference call with the Committee on or around March 29, 2006, to 
ensure that all Committee members fully understand how to objectively 
and consistently apply the criteria discussed above. Scores for each 
proposal will be developed by each Committee member based on evaluating 
proposals against the factors identified above in accordance with the 
weighting system described in section B.V.1.
    On or around April 26, 2006, the Committee will forward the scores 
for each proposal to EPA Headquarters NPS Control Branch. Based on 
these scores, EPA Headquarters NPS Control Branch will calculate the 
average score for each proposal and then rank the proposals based on 
the resulting average scores. On or around May 3, 2006, EPA 
Headquarters NPS Control Branch will send the resulting average scores 
and rankings to the Committee and hold a conference call to provide a 
final opportunity for members of the Committee to discuss the rankings 
based on the average scores. The Committee will then make funding 
recommendations to EPA Headquarters NPS Control Branch based on these 
rankings; however, in making the funding recommendations, in addition 
to considering the rankings, the Committee may also give priority 
consideration to high quality proposals that are designed to develop 
and/or implement a watershed-based plan. EPA Headquarters NPS Control 
Branch then will make the final funding decision based on the 
Committee's recommendations.
    The Committee will use the following ``Competitive Work Plan 
Evaluation Review Sheet'' to rank proposed work plans in accordance 
with the evaluation criteria discussed above.

Competitive Work Plan Evaluation Review Sheet

    Tribe Name-------------------- Reviewer--------(Weight x Value = 
Score) (Value: 0 is Lowest; 5 is Highest) (Maximum ``Max'' Score is 
900)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Weight            Evaluation factors            Value        Score
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20........  (1) The extent, and quality, to    5 Max.....  100 Max.
             which the subcategories of NPS
             pollution are identified and
             described. Comments (strengths,
             weaknesses):
20........  (2) The extent, and quality, to    5 Max.....  100 Max.
             which the water quality problems
             or threats to be addressed are
             identified and described.
             Comments (strengths,
             weaknesses):
20........  (3) The extent, and quality, to    5 Max.....  100 Max.
             which the goals and objectives
             of the project specifically
             identify the project location
             and activities to be
             implemented. Comments
             (strengths, weaknesses):
20........  (4) The extent to which            5 Max.....  100 Max.
             significant water quality
             benefits will be achieved as a
             result of the project. Comments
             (strengths, weaknesses):
15........  (5) The specificity of the budget  5 Max.....  75 Max.
             in relation to each work plan
             component. Comments (strengths,
             weaknesses):
15........  (6) The level of detail in         5 Max.....  75 Max.
             relation to the schedule for
             achieving the activities
             identified in the work plan.
             Comments (strengths,
             weaknesses):
15........  (7) The extent to which the roles  5 Max.....  75 Max.
             and responsibilities of the
             recipient and project partners
             in carrying out the work plan
             activities are specifically
             identified. Comments (strengths,
             weaknesses):

[[Page 2542]]

 
15........  (8) The extent to which the        5 Max.....  75 Max.
             performance evaluation process
             includes specific, measurable,
             and objective factors that are
             clearly linked to specific work
             plan activities throughout the
             project period and the
             anticipated environmental
             outcomes and outputs. Comments
             (strengths, weaknesses):
40........  (9) The extent, and quality, to    5 Max.....  200 Max.
             which the proposal addresses one
             of the following four factors:
            (a) The proposed work plan
             develops a watershed-based plan
             and implements a watershed-based
             plan.
            (b) The proposed work plan
             develops a watershed-based plan
             and implements a watershed
             project (that does not implement
             a watershed-based plan).
            (c) The proposed work plan
             implements a watershed-based
             plan.
            (d) The proposed work plan
             implements a watershed project
             that is a significant step
             towards solving NPS impairments
             or threats on a watershed-wide
             basis. Comments (strengths,
             weaknesses):
                                              -------------
            Total Maximum Score                           900
------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates
    On or around May 5, 2006, EPA Headquarters NPS Control Branch will 
select the proposals for award and announce to the Regions which 
Tribes' work plans have been selected for competitive funding. These 
Tribes will be notified immediately by phone or e-mail, with a written 
letter to follow.

VI. Award Administration Information

1. Award Notices
    Following final selections, all applicants will be notified 
regarding their application's status.
    a. EPA anticipates notification to successful applicant(s) will be 
made by the appropriate EPA Regional Tribal NPS Coordinator via 
telephone, electronic, or postal mail on or around May 5, 2006. This 
notification, which advises that the applicant's proposal has been 
selected and is being recommended for award, is not an authorization to 
begin performance. The award notice signed by the EPA award official is 
the authorizing document and will be provided through postal mail. At a 
minimum, this process can take 90 days from the date of selection 
notification.
    b. EPA anticipates notification to unsuccessful applicant(s) will 
be made by the appropriate EPA Regional Tribal NPS Coordinator via 
electronic or postal mail within 15 calendar days after final selection 
of successful applicants. In either event, the notification will be 
sent to the signer of the application.
    c. The appropriate EPA Regional Tribal NPS Coordinator will notify 
applicants which do not meet the threshold eligibility criteria under 
section B.III.3 within 15 calendar days of EPA's decision on applicant 
eligibility.
2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements
    a. A listing and description of general EPA regulations applicable 
to the award of assistance agreements may be viewed at: http://www.epa.gov/ogd/AppKit/appplicable_epa_regulations_and_description.htm.
    b. All applicants are required to provide a Dun and Bradstreet 
(D&B) Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number when applying for a 
Federal grant or cooperative agreement. Applicants can receive a DUNS 
number, at no cost, by calling the dedicated tollfree DUNS Number 
request line at 1-866-705-5711, or visiting the D&B Web site at: http://www.dnb.com.
    c. Pursuant to CWA section 319(h)(12), administrative costs in the 
form of salaries, overhead, or indirect costs for services provided and 
charged against activities and programs carried out with the grant 
shall not exceed 10 percent of the grant award. The costs of 
implementing enforcement and regulatory activities, education, 
training, technical assistance, demonstration projects, and technology 
transfer are not subject to this limitation.
    d. For a Tribe (or intertribal consortium) that received section 
319 funds in the preceding fiscal year, section 319(h)(8) of the CWA 
requires that the Region determine whether the Tribe made 
``satisfactory progress'' during the previous fiscal year in meeting 
the schedule of activities specified in its approved NPS management 
program in order to receive section 319 funding in the current fiscal 
year. The Region will base this determination on an examination of 
Tribal activities, reports, reviews, and other documents and 
discussions with the Tribe in the previous year. Regions must include 
in each section 319 grant (or in a separate document, such as the 
grant-issuance cover letter, that is signed by the same EPA official 
who signs the grant), a written determination that the Tribe has made 
satisfactory progress during the previous fiscal year in meeting the 
schedule of milestones specified in its NPS management program. The 
Regions must include brief explanations that support their 
determinations.
3. Reporting
    As provided in 40 CFR 31.40, 31.41, 35.507, 35.515, and 35.638, all 
section 319 grants must include a set of reporting requirements and a 
process for evaluating performance. Some of these requirements have 
been explicitly incorporated into the required work plan components 
that all Tribes must include in order to receive section 319 grant 
funding.
    The work plan components required for section 319 funding, 
specifically those relating to work plan commitments and timeframes for 
their accomplishment, facilitate the management and oversight of Tribal 
grants by providing specific activities and outputs by which progress 
can be monitored. The performance evaluation process and reporting 
schedule (both work plan components) also establish a formal process by 
which accomplishments can be measured. Additionally, the satisfactory 
progress determination (for Tribes that received section 319 funding in 
the preceding fiscal year) helps ensure that Tribes are making progress 
in achieving the goals in their NPS management programs.
    Regions will ensure that the required evaluations are performed 
according to the negotiated schedule (at least annually) and that 
copies of evaluation reports are placed in the official files and 
provided to the recipient.
4. Dispute Resolution
    Assistance agreement competition-related disputes will be resolved 
in accordance with the dispute resolution procedures published in 70 FR 
3629, 3630 (January 26, 2005) which can be found at http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20051800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/05-1371.htm. Copies of these procedures 
may also be requested by contacting the EPA Regional Tribal NPS 
Coordinator listed in section B.VII below.

[[Page 2543]]

VII. Agency Contacts: EPA Headquarters and Regional Tribal NPS 
Coordinators

    EPA Headquarters--Stacie Craddock, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and 
Watersheds, Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, telephone: 
202-566-1204; e-mail: [email protected].
    Region I--Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode 
Island, Vermont; Warren Howard; mailing address: U.S. EPA Region I, 1 
Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02203; telephone: 617-918-1587; 
e-mail: [email protected].
    Region II--New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands; 
Donna Somboonlakana; mailing address: U.S. EPA Region II, 290 
Broadway--24th Floor (MC DEPP:WPB), New York, New York 10007; 
telephone: 212-637-3700; e-mail: [email protected].
    Region III--Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West 
Virginia, Washington, DC; Fred Suffian; mailing address: U.S. EPA 
Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103; telephone: 215-
814-5753; e-mail: [email protected].
    Region IV--Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North 
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee; Yolanda Brown; mailing address: 
U.S. EPA Region IV, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, 
SW., Atlanta, GA 30303; telephone: 404-562-9451; e-mail: 
[email protected].
    Region V--Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin; 
Daniel Cozza; mailing address: U.S. EPA Region V, 77 West Jackson Blvd. 
(MC: WS-15J), Chicago, IL 60604; telephone: 312-886-7252; e-mail: 
[email protected].
    Region VI--Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas; George 
Craft; mailing address: U.S. EPA Region VI, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, 
TX 75202; telephone: 214-665-6684; e-mail: [email protected].
    Region VII--Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska; Peter Davis; mailing 
address: U.S. EPA Region VII, 901 N. 5th Street, Kansas City, KS 66101; 
telephone: 913-551-7372; e-mail: [email protected].
    Region VIII--Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, 
Wyoming; Mitra Jha; mailing address: U.S. EPA Region VIII, 999 18th 
Street, Suite 300 (MC: EPR-EP), Denver, CO 80202; telephone: 303-312-
6895; e-mail: [email protected].
    Region IX--Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, American Samoa, 
Mariana Islands, Guam; Tiffany Eastman; mailing address: U.S. EPA 
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street (MC: WTR-10), San Francisco, CA 94105; 
telephone: 1-800-735-2922, relay 415-972-3404; e-mail: 
[email protected].
    Region X--Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington; Krista Mendelman; 
mailing address: U.S. EPA Region X, 1200 6th Avenue (MC: OWW-137), 
Seattle, WA 98101; telephone: 206-553-1571; e-mail: 
[email protected].

VIII. Other Information

1. Anticipated Deadlines and Milestones for FY 2007 Competitive Grants
    Beginning in FY 2007, the schedule for submitting work plans and 
awarding section 319 competitive grants will be modified to expedite 
the grant awards process. These modifications are intended to ensure 
that award decisions are made earlier in the fiscal year to provide 
adequate time for Tribes to implement work plans within the applicable 
fiscal year. The following estimated dates are provided in order to 
assist Tribes in planning for EPA's FY 2007 funding cycle for 
competitive grants:
    Date for Tribes to be eligible for 319 grants. October 13, 2006.
    Tribes submit competitive grant proposals. December 1, 2006 
(anticipated).
    Headquarters notifies Regions/Tribes of selections. March 5, 2007 
(anticipated).
    Tribes submit final grant application to Region. April 5, 2007 
(anticipated).
    Other than the date EPA will use to determine eligibility to 
receive 319 grants, the dates above are the anticipated dates for those 
actions.
2. Right to Reject All Proposals
    EPA reserves the right to reject all proposals or applications and 
make no award as a result of this announcement. The EPA Grant Award 
Officer is the only official that can bind the Agency to the 
expenditure of funds for selected projects resulting from this 
announcement.

Attachment A--Components of a Watershed-Based Plan

    1. An identification of the causes and sources or groups of 
similar sources that will need to be controlled to achieve the goal 
identified in element 3 below. Sources that need to be controlled 
should be identified at the significant subcategory level with 
estimates of the extent to which they are present in the watershed 
(e.g., X number of dairy cattle feedlots needing upgrading, 
including a rough estimate of the number of cattle per facility; Y 
acres of row crops needing improved nutrient management or sediment 
control; or Z linear miles of eroded streambank needing 
remediation).
    2. A description of the NPS management measures that will need 
to be implemented to achieve a water quality-based goal described in 
element 3 below, as well as to achieve other watershed goals 
identified in the watershed-based plan, and an identification (using 
a map or a description) of the critical areas which those measures 
will be needed to implement the plan.
    3. An estimate of the water quality-based goals expected to be 
achieved by implementing the measures described in element 2 above. 
To the extent possible, estimates should identify specific water 
quality-based goals, which may incorporate, for example: load 
reductions; water quality standards for one or more pollutants/uses; 
NPS total maximum daily load allocations; measurable, in-stream 
reductions in a pollutant; or improvements in a parameter that 
indicates stream health (e.g., increases in fish or 
macroinvertebrate counts). If information is not available to make 
specific estimates, water quality-based goals may include narrative 
descriptions and best professional judgment based on existing 
information.
    4. An estimate of the amounts of technical and financial 
assistance needed, associated costs, and/or the sources and 
authorities that will be relied upon to implement the plan. As 
sources of funding, Tribes should consider other relevant Federal, 
State, local and private funds that may be available to assist in 
implementing the plan.
    5. An information and education component that will be used to 
enhance public understanding and encourage early and continued 
participation in selecting, designing, and implementing the NPS 
management measures that will be implemented.
    6. A schedule for implementing the NPS management measures 
identified in this plan that is reasonably expeditious.
    7. A description of interim, measurable milestones for 
determining whether NPS management measures or other control actions 
are being implemented.
    8. A set of criteria that can be used to determine whether the 
water quality-based goals are being achieved over time and 
substantial progress is being made towards attaining water quality-
based goals and, if not, the criteria for determining whether the 
watershed-based plan needs to be revised.
    9. A monitoring component to evaluate the effectiveness of the 
implementation efforts over time, measured against the criteria 
established under element 8 above.

[FR Doc. E6-408 Filed 1-13-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P