# Chesapeake Bay Watershed Assistance Network

Access to Federal Funds

A Collaborative Effort of the Chesapeake Bay Federal Agencies Committee and the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Assistance Network

Chesapeake Bay Program Annapolis, Maryland

March 2007

## CONTENTS

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... ........ 4

Background ................................................................................................................................... 5

Executive Summary.............................................................................................................. ........ 7

Network Findings............................................................................................................... ........... 7

Next Steps .................................................................................................................................... 11

Conclusions.................................................................................................................................. 12

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Assistan ce Network Mission Statement ................................... 13

Federal Programs Descriptions and Interviews....................................................................... 14

United States Department of Agricu lture (USDA) Farm Service (FSA)............................... 15
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)/Conserva tion Reserve Enhancemen t Program (CREP).............................15

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (FS) ............................................... 19
Chesapeake Watershed Forestry Program .......................................................................................... ....................19

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) ....................................................... 22
Agricultural Management Assistance (AMA) ....................................................................................... .................22

Conservation Innov ation Grants ................................................................................................. ............................24

Conservation Secur ity Program (CSP) ............................................................................................ .......................26

Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA)........................................................................................ .....................28 Environmental Quality Ince ntives Program (EQIP) ............................................................................... ...............30

Farm and Ranch Lands Pr otection Program (FRPP) ................................................................................. .............32 Grassland Reserve Program (GRP)................................................................................................ .........................34

Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP)................................................................................................. ........................36

Wildlife Habitat Incen tives Program (WHIP)..................................................................................... ....................38

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)........................................................................... 39
Non Point Source Implementati on Grants (319 Program) ........................................................................... ...........39

Clean Water State Revol ving Fund (CWSRF)....................................................................................... .................44 Chesapeake Bay State Impl ementation Grants (CBIG) .............................................................................. ............49

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) a nd National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) ........................................................................................................................................ 52
Chesapeake Bay Targeted Wate rshed Grants Program (TWG)......................................................................... .....52

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) ................................................................................... 56
Section 510 Chesapeake Bay Environmen tal Restoration Pr otection Program ......................................................56

Section 219 Environmen tal Infrast ructure ....................................................................................... .......................58 Section 313 South Central Pennsylvania Environmental Improvement Program...................................................60

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ................................................................................................. .. 62

Federal Assistance to State Wildlife an d Sport Fish Rest oration Programs ....................................................... ....62 Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act) Grant Programs

............................................................................................................................... .................................................65

State Wildlif e Grants .......................................................................................................... ....................................683 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)................................................ 70
Coastal Zone Manage ment Act (CZMA)............................................................................................. ...................70 National Estuarine Research Reserve System (N ERRS) Coastal Zone Mana gement Act (CZMA).......................74

Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Pr ogram (CELCP)........................................................................ ........78

U.S. Geological Survey ......................................................................................................... ...... 81
Chesapeake Bay St udies .........................................................................................................................................81

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration................................. 83
Transportation Enhancements (TE's), Su rface Transportation Program (STP) ......................................................8 3

Appendix A: Directive No. 04-2 Meeting the Nutr ient and Sediment Reduction Goals –Next Steps ............................................................................................................................................. 87

Appendix B: The Resolution to Enhance Federal Cooperation and Coordination.............. 90

Appendix C: FY’05 Federa l Spending Inventory.................................................................... 93

Appendix D: Chesapeake 2000 Keystone Commitments ........................................................ 94

Appendix E: Federal Spending on Keystone Commitment .................................................... 95

Appendix F: Chesapeake Executive Council: Federal Agencies Committee Tributary Strategy Backgrounder and Spending...................................................................................... 984 Acknowledgements

Development of this document involved the coop eration of many federal agencies to gather

materials and information that examine resources available for stakeholders in the implementation of Chesapeake Bay nutrient and se diment reduction strategies. Many thanks to the dedicated participants who provided documentati on needed for this effort: Danielle Algazi, U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office; Ann Carkhuff, US EPA Wate r Protection Division Section 319; Nelson Castellanos, U.S. Departme nt of Transportation, FHWA Baltimore; Sally Claggett, USDA Forest Service; Kari Cohen, US DA Natural Resources Conservation Service; Jennifer Griener, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Amy Guise, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore; Maggie Cunningham, US EPA Water Pr otection Division CWSRF; Suzanne Hall, US EPA Water Protection Division Section 319; Am y Handen, National Park Service; Dan Johnson, U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA Baltimore; Catherine King, US EPA Water Protection Division CWSRF; John Kuriawa, NOAA Coastal Zone Management Act; Theresa Martella, U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office; Ginger Murphy, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service; Marlys Osterhues, U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA HQ; Robert Pace, U.S. Army Corps of Engineer s, Baltimore; Scott Phillips, USGS; Peyton Robertson, NOAA Chesapeake Bay Program Offi ce; Bebe Shortall, USDA Farm Service Agency; Fred Suffian, US EPA Water Protection Division Section 319; Kyle Zieba, U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office; Hank Zygmunt, U.S. EPA Chesap eake Bay Program Office.

Rebecca W. Hanmer, Director Chesapeake Bay Program Office5 Background

The Chesapeake 2000 agreement has been guiding Maryla nd, Pennsylvania, Virginia, the District of Columbia, the Chesapeake Bay Comm ission and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in their combined efforts to rest ore and protect the Chesapeake Bay. It defined the goal to “achieve and maintain the water quality necessary to s upport the aquatic living resources of the Bay and its tributaries and to protect human health.” Delaware, New York and West Virginia have also signed a Memorandum of Understanding, committing to implement the Water Quality Protection and Restora tion section of the agreement.

Chesapeake 2000 committed its signatories to:

Continue efforts to achieve and mainta in the 40 percent nutrient reduction goal agreed to in 1987 and correct th e nutrient- and sediment-related problems in the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries sufficiently to remove the Bay and the tidal portions of its tributaries from the list of impaired waters under the Clean Water Act by 2010.

In its 2003 Directive, “Meeting the Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Goals,” the Chesapeake

Executive Council reaffirmed its commitment to this restoration effort. The Council directed the Chesapeake Bay Program to convene a Chesap eake Bay Watershed Blue Ribbon Panel to consider funding sources and actions to implement the state tributary strategies basinwide and to make recommendations regarding other actions at the federal, state and local level to the

Executive Council.” The Blue Ribbon Panel met in 2004, and produced a comprehensive set of recommendations, including the need to: “impro ve coordination and cooperation among federal agencies with programs in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.”

In its 2005 Directive No. 04-2, “Meeting the Nutr ient and Sediment Reduction Goals – Next Steps,” the Chesapeake Bay Executive Council directed the Chesapeake Bay Program to, “establish a ‘Chesapeake Bay Wa tershed Funding Network’ which would include representatives from the Clean Water Act State Revolving Lo an Fund programs throughout the watershed, USDA officials responsible for Farm Bill assist ance to Bay watershed farmers for conservation and nutrient-sediment best management practic es and other relevant financial assistance entities.” The directive states that the purpose of the network is to “establish a better mutual understanding of how existing financing program s operate, explore possi bilities for greater effectiveness, and consider ways to improve fina ncing of tributary strategy implementation.” In addition, the directive recommended improvedof c oordination with federa l agencies, including an annual high-level meeting to review program and funding relationships.

In response to these directions, the first Chesapeake Bay Federal Principals meeting was held on October 7, 2005. At that meeting, high level federal representatives, supported by the Chesapeake Bay Program’s Federal Agencies Co mmittee (FAC), confirmed their willingness to join with the Network by signing the Resolution to Enhance Federal Cooperative Conservation in the Chesapeake Bay Program . In the Resolution the federal agencies agreed to cooperate with the Network to “provide resource managers, local governments, watershed associations and

landowners with more effective ac cess to appropriate pr ograms of Federal and state agencies, in

order to accelerate the restora tion of the Chesapeake Bay an d its tidal tributaries.” The

Resolution emphasizes the following purposes of the Network: (a) to establish better mutual understanding among existing federal and state fi nancial assistance programs; and (b) explore6 possibilities through networking fo r greater effectiveness in funding projects to achieve the

nutrient-sediment load reductions needed to m eet the new Chesapeake Bay tidal water quality

standards.7 Executive Summary

This document is the Network’s first step into establishing a better mutual understanding of assistance programs that provide funds towards imp lementation of the state tributary strategies and the restoration of water quality in the Ch esapeake Bay. The federal programs that are highlighted in this document were compiled by program managers that administer the funds associated with the programs. The federal progr ams consist of grants, loans, cost share and technical assistance programs. The agencies provided the Network with completed questionnaires that attempt to examine program s which the federal agencies believe have provided assistance or have the pot ential to provide assistance to local governments, farmers and other stakeholders in implementing tributary strategies. These programs are included as a portion of the Chesapeake Bay Federal Spendi ng Inventory (see Appendix C, FY05 Federal Spending Inventory). The Spending Inventory includes the agencies’ direct and indirect spending on all Chesapeake 2000 commitments The information was compiled and reviewed by the FAC. This document will serve two purpose s (1) to provide federal and state agencies with a better understanding of federal spending pr ograms that may or may not be influencing the acceleration of tributary strate gy implementation and (2) to re view issues and opportunities associated with improved access to appropriate programs for stakeholders.

This document will be presented to the Chesapea ke Bay Program leadership, in order to assist the Bay Program jurisdictions to improve access to funding for implementation of Bay

restoration actions.

Network Findings

Based on interviews with federal program mana gers, CBWAN presented the following findings at the second annual high level federa l principal’s meeting on November 29, 2006:

Challenges in Obtaining Federal Funds fo r State Tributary Strategy Implementation

• There are few federal programs specifically targeted to the Chesapeake Bay. Accessibility to Federal funds is mainly dr iven by language in program mandates that specifically recognizes priority for Ch esapeake Bay protection and restoration

. USDA Farm Service Agency's Conservation Rese rve Program/Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CRP/CREP) is an example of a federal program that specifically recognizes the Chesapeake Bay in program language. CRP/CRE P is one of the most accessible federal voluntary programs that targets the implementati on of conservation practices for nutrient and sediment load reductions in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and recognizes the Bay as a

"natural resource of na tional significance." For example, since Maryland's signed agreement with USDA and partners in 1997, 100% of their f unding was directed to the Chesapeake Bay. According to Maryland's CREP Annual Report, CREP has achieved estimated reduction of 4,000 tons N, 400 tons P and control of over 145,000 tons of sediment in Maryland. $200 million is expected over the life of the contracts that are enrolled. If federal agencies are committed towards “more effective access” to assistance programs to implement Tributary Strategies, it helps if program mandates (whi ch can be legislativel y or administratively established) include language that highli ghts the significance of the Chesapeake Bay

watershed as a national treasure.

• Federal agencies do not always have discretionary authority over funds. An example is

the U.S Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). US ACE does not have discretionary authority over unbudgeted funds. The majority of USACE funds for the Chesapeake Bay are provided by Congress and directed for specific activitie s that are above that identified in the8 President's budget. Upon receiving Congressi onal direction and appropriations, USACE

further determines or verifies that there is fe deral interest in the pr oject and then proceeds with making its recommendations for efforts that improve the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem.

• Obtaining funds to preserve water quality for local governments, watershed associations and landowners is often a capacity issue rather than an access issue. Federal agencies working to establish Ches apeake NEMO (Network for Education of Municipal Officials) have found that many municipalities lack the time and staff to develop quality projects and the capacity to follow them through the funding requirements. NEMO can provide education, technica l assistance and financial coor dination assistance to increase the capacity of local governments and wate rshed organizations implement sound land use planning and watershed protection. By suppor ting NEMO, federal pr ogram managers will

enable these communities to have bett er access to their funding programs.

• Projects are ranked higher for financing if th ere is a need to meet legal requirements. The priority systems in the CWSRF rank a proj ect higher if it is ne eded to meet permit requirements. The higher a project is on a pr iority list, the more likely it will receive funding. In Maryland and Virginia, where perm its were amended to include nutrient limits based on the new Chesapeake Bay water quality standards, demand for loans soared for SFY 2007. Furthermore, a community is more likely to seek loans from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program, for example, if there is a nutrient limit in its permit

and/or an enforcement action drivin g the treatment plant upgrades.

• Federal Agencies administer voluntary programs that provide funds towards improving water quality, but var ied priorities spread funds in different directions. For example, the primary concern of the Chesapeak e Bay watershed is th e removal of nutrient and sediments in order to improve water qualit y. However, in EPA Region III, the primary causes of nonpoint source stream impairments are split among mining and agriculture and stormwater runoff from urbanizing areas. Prio rity is placed on c ontrolling pollutants to restore local waters, such as metals from mining and bacteria from agriculture and malfunctioning septic systems. There are, how ever, many areas where correcting local water quality problems also reduces nutrient and se diment going to the Bay, such as correcting streambank erosion in agricultural and urban areas. Greater effort is needed to map and fund those projects that provide both local and Bay benefits.

• USDA information cannot be incorporated into the watershed planning and implementation tracking systems for Clean Water Act (CWA) section 319. Currently, NRCS reporting databases are limited to repor ting on a county or 8- digit HUC scale. Watershed plan implementation and TMDL allo cations are developed at smaller scales (approximately 14-16 digit HUC scale). Shar ing and collecting implementation data is

needed at a scale that can be captured and assigned towards implementation of watershed based plans.

Interagency Opportunities

The following list is comprised of opportunities identified by program managers that assist in the pursuit of making federal dollars more accessible for state tributary strategy implementation.

This is not an all inclusive list but the comm encement of increased coordination between the federal assistance programs and the states w ho are responsible for the implementation the necessary nutrient and sediment reductions need ed to meet water quality standards.

• CWSRF can pay for nonpoint source projects with community support. Historically, the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) has mainly financed infrastructure projects related to waste water treatment. EPA Region III encourages states to adopt a Sponsorship9 Program similar to one currently working in the state of Ohio, which provides an opportunity to fund non point source projects . With the Sponsorship Prog ram, the state CWSRF gives a loan to a community that w ill cover the costs of the community’s planned wastewater treatment plant project and the costs of a nonpoint source projec t. The community gives (as a grant) the funds to a nonprofit group or a farm er to build the nonpoint source project. The community repays the full amount of the loan over the negotiated repayment period, usually 20 years. The community is willing to spons or the NPS project be cause the state CWSRF

reduces the interest rate on the loan so that the total amount to be repaid (principal and interest) is the same or less than if the community only borrowed what it needed for the wastewater treatment project.

• Federal and state agencies need capable enti ties to act as intermediaries for the management of funds. For example, CWSRF programs ar e structured to manage multimillion dollar point source projects but only a lim ited number of projects each year. Some states are not equipped to ma nage the universe of nonpoint s ource projects which generally involve much smaller dollar amounts for each project but many more loans each year. Intermediaries such as Farm Credit Banks have made it possible for Virginia and Maryland CWSRF programs to provide loans to farmers fo r agriculture best management practices to implement their nutrient management plans. Since establishing agreements between the CWSRF programs and Farm Credit Banks there have been over 250 loans to farmers to implement agricultural BMPs through FY2006.

• Initiatives that are endorsed by the Execu tive Council, such as the recently signed "Manure Strategy" encourage multiple organizations to work together to increase access to federal funding. In response to the interagency Chesapeake Bay Program action plan to improve management of animal ma nure in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, USDA NRCS in Maryland is partnering with the Chesapeake Bay Program, the University of Maryland and others to pilot a multi-faceted appr oach to expand the implementation of dairy feed management by agricultura l producers in the state. Th e pilot, part of NRCS' 2007 Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQI P) in Maryland, include s incentive payments to producers, a certification program for feed management specialists, and an education and outreach program. By reducing the amount of nu trients fed to dairy cows, feed management

can in turn reduce the amount of nitr ogen and phosphorus applied to cropland.

• Section 510 Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection Authority has discretionary potential. When funds are added to the Section 510 Program, Congress can direct activities or allow USACE to apply the funds to design and construct priority projects

coordinated with the States of MD, VA, and PA. Program aut horization limits are currently at $10M. Projects completed or ongoing will utilize the $10M. These projects include wastewater treatment plant upgrades, shor eline protection and stabilization, wetland restoration, trash reduction, oys ter restoration, and the non-na tive oyster EIS. It is anticipated that the funding authorization limits will be exceeded by projects already underway. States have identified projects for the Section 510 Program that well-exceed the program limit. Future funding and higher authorization limits are needed for USACE to be able to continue to support the Chesapeake Bay Program restoration using this design and construction authority.

• Technical assistance programs provide accessibility by building capacity. Conservation programs, such as those administered by NRCS , provide technical assistance to communities throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed. US DA works through an established partnership with state departments of agricu lture and local conservation distri cts to provide assistance to

landowners via the Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA) program, through a national network of locally respected, technically sk illed, professional cons ervationists. These

conservationists deliver consiste nt, science-based, site-specifi c solutions to help private10 landowners voluntarily conserve, maintain, and improve the Nati on's natural resource base. Landowners in the Chesapeake Bay watershe d access USDA programs through local USDA service centers, located in most counties across all six states . In FY 2005, NRCS spent an estimated $40 million in CTA funds to assist producers and other private landowners in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. This type of progr am fills in a great need to landowners to

obtain skills needed for conservati on measures and should be recognized.

• Leveraging through the bond market helps finance upgrades. The CWSRF programs allow states to leverage its grant dollars by selling bonds. This process allows states to double (or more) the amount of mone y available in the fund in any given year. For example, in FY 2007 Virginia plans to leverage its exp ected federal grant of approximately $13 million to raise over $300 million for point source projects . Some of these projects are in the Bay watershed and are for BNR and ENR upgrades.

• Federal collaboration on social marketing approaches could increase access by reaching small watershed organizations and communities. In order to restore streams lakes and rivers, a concentrated targeted effort is need ed to implement the necessary BMP's to achieve the necessary load reductions. For example TMDL's often call for 90 to 100% reductions in pollutants to achieve water qual ity goals. Current participa tion rates in many of our small watershed efforts are reaching a pproximately 50 - 60 percent. Social marketing approaches are necessary in order to unders tand the barriers to BMP implementation and our approach to delivering volunteer programs ma y need to be modified.

• State program management meetings help to identify opportunities for accessing funds

. In Region III, CWSRF state program managers meet for two days each year to share and discuss problems, challenges, opportunities and successes. In 2006, the agenda included the mission and goals of the Chesapeake Bay Waters hed Assistance Network. This established forum is perfect for identifying and addressing barriers to reaching the Chesapeake Bay goals in the CWSRF program. In addition, EPA c onducts an annual review of each state’s program. This review usually includes a thre e-day visit to the state offices which include meetings to discuss specific barriers and opportunities applicable to each state’s CWSRF

program.

• Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) participation in Water Quality Trading credits can provide improved access . Treatment plants can obt ain loans to reduce their nutrient discharges beyond their permit limits, creating a trading credit. A farmer can obtain

a loan for the construction of a BMP which coul d create a credit. A treatment plant could use

a CWSRF loan to install a BMP on a farm whic h generates a credit the treatment plant can use to meet its permit requirements.

• Opportunities for Chesapeake Bay restorati on exist in mitigation and stewardship opportunities associated with the Federal aid highway projects administered by FHWA through the State highway agencies . Through the planning pr ocess, the transportation community has the ability to help expand local and state natural resour ce inventory tools and incorporate them into the proj ect planning process, offering enhanced abilities to more efficiently align resource preservation tools and project stewardship and mitigation efforts.

• Providing more effective access is po ssible through targeting use of funds . The development of standard operating procedures that outline the va riety of coordination activities between federal agencies and within an agency with pr ogrammatic missions of nutrient and sediment removal can provide a more effective use of funds. For example, the EPA Region III Clean Water Act funding programs (CWSRF, section 319 and section 117) are engaging in activities to meet cross-prog rammatic strategic targ ets. These activities include, but are not limited to: co ordination between grant project officers, accounting for the CB Federal Spending Inventory, development of GIS maps and data sh owing distribution of each programs targeted watersheds/waterbodies , and the creation of a cross-programmatic11 logic model detailing the inputs (technical /financial assistance), outputs (BMP implementation) and outcomes (environmenta l results) related to pollution reduction and resource preservation activities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. This kind of networking is also possible among agencies – for example, EPA and several other agencies pool grant funds which are administered by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.

• Potential exists for CBP to engage NEAF W to directed funds towards conservation

actions in the CB Watershed : The Northeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (NEAFWA) is developing a collaborative projec t where conservation actions that are deemed regional priorities and benefit multiple St ates will be funded through pooling of State apportioned State Wildlife Grant dollars, administ ered by the US Fish a nd Wildlife Service.

Five of the NEAFWA are contained within th e Bay watershed. Potential exists for funding

to be directed towards conservation actions consistent with the Chesapeake Bay Program Strategic Implementation Plans for Pillar One: Restoring Healthy Waters” and Pillar Two: “Restoring Healthy Habitats.” F unding could be directed to lo cal entities through sub-grants or other agreements.

Main Document

The main section of this document contains basi c information on federal grants, cost sharing and technical assist programs and answers to interv iew questions that alrea dy target or have the potential to target funds towards the implement ation of nutrient and sediment reductions as outlined in state tributary strategies. Each program contains the following: Section I: Program

Overview , including contact information, desc ription and history of program; Section II: Funding Availability , including when funding is available, amount available, cost share requirements and criteria; Section III: Funding Distri bution Question and Answer including how money is distributed at the national level; and Section IV: Interviews Specific to State Tributary Strategies , including ideas and opportunities for le veraging fund (where information was available). The interview questi ons and follow up discussions lead to the findings made above.

This document also contains several background materials, as mentioned throughout the document, in the Appendices as follows:

Appendix A: Directive No. 04-2 Meeting the Nutr ient and Sediment Reduction Goals –Next Steps Appendix B: The Resolution to Enhan ce Federal Cooperation and Coordination Appendix C: FY’05 Federal Spending Inventory Appendix D: Chesapeake 2000 Keystone Commitments (Pillars) Appendix E: Funding By Keystone Commitment Appendix F: Executive Committee Backgrounder: Federal Advisory Committee Tributary Strategy

Next Steps
This first phase of the Network activities has invo lved the synthesis of in formation from federal programs. These materials have aided the FAC in assessing funding programs and in developing ideas to improve the accessibility of federal assistance programs.

The Chesapeake Bay Program is currently in the process of improving its plans for implementing pollution reductions and habitat re storation, in accordance with the Program’s water quality and aquatic habitat goals and the state tributary strategies. As part of this planning process, the Bay Program partners will be reassessing the various sources of funding to ach ieve these restoration

actions.12 This report will be presented to the Chesapeak e Bay Program’s Principals Staff Committee on May 23, 2007, and the federal agencies administering the programs will make themselves available to discuss the issues and opport unities with Bay Program partners.

Most of the federal assistance programs are ad ministered through state offices or in close cooperation with the states. Th erefore, during its next phase, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Assistance Network will consid er how best to take advantag e of the opportunities highlighted

here.

Conclusions

The Chesapeake Bay Program Federal Agencies Committee (FAC) was challenged with the task of assessing funding sources and in creasing the accessibility to pr ograms that fund state tributary strategies. The FAC worked cooperatively wi th the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Assistance Network to provide program funding information. Concurrently, federa l leaders have been working together to develop strategic meas ures, based on the Chesapeake 2000 keystone commitments, that would enhance cooperation and strengthen the effectiv eness of the available federal assistance programs. The findings listed above, will be used to continue cooperation and improve accessibility of federal funds.Chesapeake Bay Watershed Assistance Network Mission Statement

Mission, Goals and Desired Results

In January 2005, the Chesapeake Executive Coun cil (CEC) issued Dire ctive 04-2, “Meeting the Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Goals - Next Steps.” The Directive outlined measures to accelerate implementation of the tributary strate gies developed by the Chesapeake Bay Program partners, and restore wate r quality in the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries. Funding for tributary strategy implementation is a key issue, and a number of federal and state financial and related technical assistance pr ograms can help. The Council directed the Chesapeake Bay Program to create a network of assistance programs “to establish a better mutual understanding of how existing financing programs operate, explor e possibilities for greater effectiveness, and consider ways to improve financing of tri butary strategy implementation.” The Directive specified that the Network should include “rep resentatives from the Clean Water Act State Revolving Loan Fund programs throughout the waters hed, USDA officials responsible for Farm Bill assistance to Bay watershed farmers for conservation and nutrient-sediment best management practices, and other relevant financ ial assistance entities. ” Finally, the Directive asked for specific attention to “co -funding” programs and to an analytical basis for identifying “hardship communities” requiring grant assistance to meet tributary strategy requirements. In response to this mandate, federal and state agency representatives have come together to form the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Assistance Netw ork, begin the sharing of information, and prepare this statement of missi on, goals and desired results.

MISSION: To secure substantial and sustainabl e funding for the implementation of the Chesapeake Bay watershed tributary strategies.

GOALS: 1. Establish a voluntary Chesapeake Ba y Watershed Assistance Network. 2. Establish a better mutual understanding of how existing financing programs operate. 3. Explore possibilities for greater e ffectiveness in financing programs. 4. Consider ways to improve financing of tributary strategy implementation. 5. Create an awareness among Network member s of how “hardship communities” have

been identified. These are communities that would require grant assistance to meet tributary strategy requirements. 6. Jurisdictions will consider analyzing “co-f unding” as it could apply to their states.

DESIRED RESULTS: 1. Strong and inclusive Chesapeake Bay Watershed Assist ance Network is established. 2. Network members become proficient in thei r knowledge of and ability to access funding

sources. 3. Greater financing eff ectiveness is achieved. 4. Improvements are made that accelerate financing tributary strategy implementation. 5. Information regarding “hardship communities” is shared among jurisdictions as available. 6. Identification of possible jurisdic tional applications for “co-funding.”

1314 

### Federal Programs Descriptions and InterviewsUnited States Department of Agricultu re (USDA) Farm Service (FSA)

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)/Conser vation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)

Section I: Program Overview

Funding Program Name: Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)/Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) Agency: United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Division: Farm Service Agency (FSA) - Maryland

Contact information: Bebe Shortall 410-381-4550, ext. 110

More information can be found at: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=landing&topic=landing

Established: CRP-1985, CREP-1997

Description: CRP - The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is a voluntary program for agricultural landowners. Through CRP, agricultural producers and landowners can receive annual rental payments and cost-share assistan ce to establish long-term, resource conserving covers on eligible farmland.

The Commodity Credit Corporat ion (CCC) makes annual rental payments based on the agriculture rental value of the land, and it provides cost-share a ssistance for up to 50 percent of the participant's costs in establishing approved co nservation practices. Participants enroll in CRP contracts for 10 to 15 years.

CRP protects millions of acres of American topso il from erosion and is designed to safeguard the Nation's natural resources. By reducing wa ter runoff and sedimentation, CRP protects groundwater and helps improve the condition of lakes, rivers, ponds, and streams. Acreage enrolled in the CRP is planted to resource-c onserving vegetative covers, making the program a major contributor to incr eased wildlife populations There are 2 types of CRP Signups - . CRP Ge neral Sign-up-Producers can offer land for CRP general sign-up enrollment only during desi gnated sign-up periods. CRP Continuous Sign-upEnvironmentally desirable land devoted to certai n conservation practices may be enrolled at any time under CRP continuous sign-up. Certain eligibilit y requirements still apply, but offers are not subject to competitive bidding.

CREP – The Conservation Reserve Enhancem ent Program (CREP) is a Memorandum of Agreement between USDA, CCC, and the State of Maryland to implement a component of CRP for certain purposes in the vicinity of the Chesapeake Bay under the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP).

The intended outcome is to allow, where d eemed desirable by USDA, CCC, and Maryland, certain acreage to be enrolled under the CREP. The Chesapeake Bay is a natural resource of national significance which is recognized by the Conservation Reserve Program, (CRP), authorizing legislation as an area of special e nvironmental sensitivity. The Chesapeake Bay was

1516 previously designated a CRP nati onal conservation priority area ma king all cropland within that area basically eligible for enrollment.

USDA, CCC, and Maryland, in cooperation with othe r Federal, State, and lo cal authorities, seek to take actions that will help reduce the occurrence of runoff, sediment, and nutrients in the Chesapeake Bay and which will promote enhanced wildlife habitats.

Section II: Funding Availability

When is funding Available?

MD: Funding is available through the current Farm Bill

Who is eligible? Eligible Producers - To be eligible for CRP enrollment, a producer must have owned or operated the land for at least 12 mont hs prior to close of the CRP sign-up period.

Eligible Land - To be eligible for placement in CRP, land must be either:

Cropland (including fi eld margins) that is pl anted or considered planted to an agricultural commodity 4 of the previous 6 crop years from 1996 to 2001, and which is physically and legally capable of being planted in a normal ma nner to an agricultural commodity; or Certain marginal pastureland that is suitable for use as a riparian buffer or for similar water quality purposes.

Amount of Assistance provided in past th ree years to CB watershed per state (See Appendix C, Federal Spending Inventory)?

FY’05: $42,000,000

FY’04: $59,000,000

Cost Share Requirements: CRP Payments - FSA provides CRP participants with annual rental payments, including certain incentive pa yments, and cost-share assistance:

Rental Payments - In return for establishi ng long-term, resource-conserving covers, FSA provides annual rental payments to participan ts. FSA bases rental ra tes on the relative productivity of the soils within each county and the average dr y land cash rent or cash-rent equivalent. The maximum CRP rental rate for each offer is calculated in advance of enrollment. Producers may offer land at that rate or offer a lo wer rental rate to incr ease the likelihood that their offer will be accepted. Maintenance Incentive Payments - CRP annual rental payments may include an additional amount up to $5 per acre per year as an incentiv e to perform certain maintenance obligations. Cost-share Assistance - FSA pr ovides cost-share assistance to participants who establish approved cover on eligible cropla nd. The cost-share assistance can be an amount not more than 50 percent of the participants' costs in establishing approved practices. Other Incentives - FSA may offer additional fi nancial incentives of up to 20 percent of the annual payment for certain co ntinuous sign-up practices. CREP Payments - CCC shall pay CREP participants 50.0 percent of the reimbursable costs of establishing eligible conserva tion practices as provided in Handbook 2-CRP. Reimbursable costs paid to the eligible producer, from all sources, shall not exceed 100 percent of the producer’s eligible out -of-pocket expenses.17 Incentive payments, made as part of the annual rental payment, will be made by CCC, in

addition to CRP maximum annual cr opland-based soil rental rate (S RR) applicable to the soil types to be enrolled in the CREP, in amounts as follows: (1) For land to be enrolled under practice CP22 (Riparian Buffers): 1.$200/ac for the first 50 feet of buffer

2. $50/ac for 51st-100th foot of buffer

3. $0/ac beyond 100th foot of buffer

(2) For land to be enrolled as a buffer m easure under practice CP4D (Permanent Wildlife Habitat), CP21 (Filter Strips), CP29 (Marginal Pastureland Wildlife Habitat Buffers), or CP30 (Marginal Pastureland Wetland Buffers): 1. $150/ac for the first 50 feet of buffer

2. $50/ac for 51st-100th foot of buffer

3. $0/ac beyond 100th foot of buffer

(3) For land to be enrolled under practice CP 23 (Wetland Restoration) or CP9 (Shallow Water Areas for Wildlife) and, CP1, CP2, CP3, CP3A, CP4D determined as Highly Erodible Land (HEL), or CP25 (Habitat for Declining Species) $50/ac

Authority: CRP provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended (1985 Act) (16 U.S.C.

3830 et seq .), and the CRP regulations at 7 CFR part 1410. Enrollments in the CRP are authorized in current law through December 31, 2007.

Funding criteria/rating system: Offers for CRP contracts are ranked according to the Environmental Benefits Index (EB I). FSA collects data for each of the EBI factors based on the

relative environmental benefits for the land offere d. Each eligible offer is ranked in comparison

to all other offers and selections made from that ranking. FSA uses the following EBI factors to

assess the environmental benefits for the land offered:

Wildlife habitat benefits resulting fr om covers on contract acreage; Water quality benefits from reduced erosion, runoff, and leaching; On-farm benefits from reduced erosion; Benefits that will likely endur e beyond the contract period; Air quality benefits from reduced wind erosion; and

Cost.

CREP offers are not ranked. O ffers are approved if all eligibility requirements are met.

______________________________________________________________________ Section III: Funding Distribut ion Question and Answer

How do the HQ offices (Washington DC) det ermine the distribution of funds among the Regional offices? No distribution How much discretion do regional offices/lead ag encies have in the distribution of funds to states, localities or watershed organizations? N/A

How are priorities set for the distribution of funds in regional/lead offices? Is their a formula for how it is distributed? Is there a priori ties list of objectives or projects targeted?

N/A18 Is their a guidance document that guide applicants that is provided? If so, how often is it published and who is responsible for distribution and content? N/A

If not how do applicants get word of what is available and for what purpose?

How are selections made?

Are their regional or geographic areas that are targeted? If not, why?

What was the distribution of funds last year (who got the money by sector)?

Is it possible to determine watershed areas that were targeted?

What type of environmental results (out comes) are included in award documents? CREP, taking into account previous enroll ments, will seek to achieve the following environmental objectives:

1. Reduction of nutrient pollution from agri cultural lands of a pproximately 5,750 tons of nitrogen and 550 tons of phosphorus on an annual basis.

2. Reduction of sediment loading into st reams from agricultural lands of approximately 200,000 tons of sediment on an annual basis.

3. Increase the survivability, distribution, and abundance of targeted fish, wildlife and plant species in the Chesapeake re gion by establishing or enhancing 93,000 acres of riparian habitat, 5,000 acres of wetland habitat and 2000 acres of habitat for declining species. Emphasis will be gi ven to high priority species listed under

the North American Waterfowl Plan and St ate and Federally-listed threatened or endangered species, such as bald eagles, Eastern bog turtle, dwarf wedge mussel, glassy darter and harparella.United States Department of Agri culture Forest Service (FS)

Chesapeake Watershed Forestry Program

Section I: Program Overview

Funding Program Name: Chesapeake Watershed Forestry Program Agency: USDA Forest Service

Division: Northeastern Area

Contact information: Sally Claggett 410-267-5706

Established: 1991

Description: Through its Chesapeake Watershed Forestry program, the Forest Service provides forestry leadership, and facilita tes the activities of the Forestry Workgroup (FWG) in order to 1) create a regional model for linking forest conser vation, restoration, and st ewardship to watershed health while sustaining working la ndscapes; 2) find solutions to watershed and forestry issues by serving as a catalyst for action; 3) bring science, technical, and fi nancial assistance together to meet Chesapeake Bay goals; and 4) build new part nerships for regional forest stewardship.

From 1997-2007, Congress earmarked funds for this program, often above the President’s budget request. These funds support an office, Forest Service staff support for the Bay restoration effort, grants oversight and mana gement, cooperative projects a nd initiatives with Bay states, grants to non-profits and communities, and th e conduct of studies, education, and outreach.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Forestry Program Appropriations ($ in thousands)

FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07

150 227 250 250 250 500 500 494 994 988 950 945 1000

All funding comes through State and Private Forest ry and is designed to get federal forestry funds to state forestry programs. All money is obligated to addre ssing the area of overlap between Chesapeake Bay goals and forestry issu es. Non state projects become funded as determined by the FWG.

Section II: Funding Availability

When is funding Available? September

Who is eligible? After administrative work is funded and any special projects decided upon by the FWG, the remaining funds are provided dire ctly to states or local communities through grants and cooperative agreements. Since 2003, the majority of these funds have also been used to support grants to non-profit and local pa rtners through the Chesapeake Small Watershed Grants Program managed by the Nati onal Fish and W ildlife Foundation.

Amount of Assistance provided for FY 06 in MD, PA, VA, DC, DE, WV, NY CB

Watershed? Approximately $700,000 total-- most is directed to state forestry agencies.

1920 Amount of Assistance provided in past th ree years to CB watershed per state? Amounts given in thousand’s.

DC DE MD NY PA VA WV Overall

2004 30 0 69 15 60 115 50 350

2005 0 25 125 15 85 91 50 411

2006 0 0 157 15 21 115 0 387

CBP 2005 Federal Spending Inventory (see Appendix C): Above included in a portion of the Inventory.

Cost Share Requirements: 50% non-federal match

Authority: Forest Cooperative Assistance Act and the 2002 Farm Bill

Funding criteria/rating system: Projects are funded primarily acco rding to actions listed in the Chesapeake Watershed Forestry Strategic Action Plan 2004-2008. The Action Plan was set in motion by a regional team of high level state and federal forestry professionals. There are 5 primary work areas outlined in the Action Plan: 1) Partnerships, 2) Information and Outreach, 3) Healthy Forest Land Base, 4) Riparian Fo rest Buffers, and 5) Urban Forestry.
Section III: Funding Distribut ion Question and Answer

How do the HQ offices (Washington DC) det ermine the distribution of funds among the Regional offices? NA

How much discretion do regional offices/lead ag encies have in the distribution of funds to states, localities or watershed organizations? These funds are at the full discretion of the FWG. Funds are designated to do watershed fore stry projects to help the water quality of the Chesapeake.

How are priorities set for the distribution of funds in regional/lead offices? Is their a formula for how it is distributed? Is there a priori ties list of objectives or projects targeted?

We tier to the Action Plan.

Is their a guidance document that guid e applicants that is provided? No. If so, how often is it published and who is responsib le for distribution and content?

If not, how do applicants get word of what is available and for what purpose? Non-state groups wishing to have a project funded must work directly with state or federal contacts on the FWG. Often, these groups will be sought out initially by the FWG.

How are selections made? State and federal representa tives on the FWG make the final approval.

Are their regional or geographic areas that are targeted? If not, why? Some watersheds are targeted in the Strategic Action Plan.

What was the distribution of funds last year (who got the money by sector)? N/A

Is it possible to determine watershed areas that were targeted? Lower Susquehanna, Potomac, and Rappahannock were targeted.21 What type of environmental results (out comes) are included in award documents? Projects must be designed to meet one of the obj ectives in the Action Pla n, or help meet one of our tracked performance measures which are: 1) acres of forest land protected from development, 2) miles of streambanks and shorelines restored to riparian forests, 3) percentage of riparian forest buffers protected from devel opment, and 4) number of communities that will implement Urban Tree Canopy expansion.

Section IV: Interviews Specific to State Tributary Strategies

Are you familiar with the state Tributary Strate gies developed to target implementation of

nutrient and sediment reduction s for improved water quality?

Yes, this is accounted for.

How can your program guidance/rules be improve d to better focus on tributary strategies? While there is always room for improvement, this is already the focus of our program/guidance.

How can states and local stakeholders improve ability to compete with others to increase the % of funds being awarded to tributary strategy implementation? Headwater states could

be more active in the FWG.

Are there examples of using these funds to he lp access additional funding (leveraging)? Yes, through the Small Watershed Grants Program. Also, several separate grant programs are offspring of our Action Plan such as Community Greening by Chesapeake Bay Trust and another urban forestry one is being developed for NE Pennsylvania.USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

Agricultural Management Assistance (AMA)

Section I: Program Overview

Funding Program Name: Agricultural Management Assistance (AMA) Agency: USDA NRCS

Division:

Contact information: Landowners can contact their local USDA Service Center for information about enrolling in the program. C ontact information for USDA Service Centers is

available at http://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app

Established: Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000

Description: Agricultural Management Assistance (A MA) provides cost share assistance to agricultural producers to voluntarily address issues such as water management, water quality, and erosion control by incorpor ating conservation into their farming operations. Producers may construct or improve water management structur es or irrigation struct ures; plant trees for windbreaks or to improve water quality; and mitig ate risk through production diversification or resource conservation practices, including soil eros ion control, integrated pest management, or transition to organic farming.

Section II: Funding Availability

When is funding Available? NRCS announces funding availability each year. The timing is variable and contingent upon C ongressional appropriations. However, landowners may submit an AMA application at any time during the year.

Who is eligible? AMA is available in 15 states where participation in the Federal Crop Insurance Program is historically low. AMA is available in the following Chesapeake Bay watershed states: Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.

Applicants must own or control the land and agre e to implement specific eligible conservation practices. Applicants must also meet the Food S ecurity Act’s definition of "person." Eligible land includes cropland, hayland, past ure and rangeland, land used for subsistence purposes, and other land (such as forestland) that produces cr ops or livestock where risk may be mitigated through operation diversification or change in resource conservation practices.

Amount of Assistance provided for FY06 in MD, PA, VA, DC, DE, WV, and NY? $3,011,635 (This figure is all States tota led, not CB watershed-specific.)

Amount of Assistance provided in past three years to CB watershed per state?

Totals for CB watershed States: 2005--$5,157,449 2004--$5,293,810 2003--$298,700

CBP 2005 Federal Spending Inventory (see Appendix C): $3,070,915 indirect spending.

2223 Cost Share Requirements: The Federal cost-share rate is 75 percent of the cost of an eligible practice, based on the percent of ac tual cost, or percent of actual cost with not-to-exceed limits,

or flat rates. Participants are paid based upon certification an d verification of comp letion of the approved practice.

Incentive payments may be made to encourage a producer to perform land management practices, such as nutrient management, manur e management, integrated pest management, irrigation water management a nd wildlife habitat management.

Authority: Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 and amended in the 2002 Farm Bill.

Funding criteria/rating system: Applications are ranked accordi ng to criteria de veloped at the State or local level. These criteria may be obtained by contacting the NRCS Maryland State Office (410-757-0861).

NRCS Partners: State Departments of Agricultur e, Conservation Districts.

National AMA Website: www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/amaUSDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

Conservation Innovation Grants

Section I: Program Overview:

Funding Program Name: Conservation Innovation Grants (a component of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program) Agency: USDA NRCS

Division:

Contact information: Tessa Chadwick, NRCS National Headquarters

202-720-2335

Established: 2002 Farm Bill

Overview of program: Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG) was author ized as part of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) in the 2002 Farm B ill. CIG is a voluntary program intended to stimulate the development and adoption of innova tive conservation approaches and technologies while leveraging Federal investment in e nvironmental enhancemen t and protection, in conjunction with agricultural production. Under CI G, EQIP funds are used to award competitive grants to non-Federal governme ntal or non-governmental organiza tions, Tribes, or individuals. CIG enables NRCS to work with other public an d private entities to accelerate technology transfer and adoption of promisi ng technologies and approaches to address some of the Nation's most pressing natural resource concerns. CIG be nefits agricultural produ cers by providing more options for environmental enhancement and co mpliance with Federal, State, and local regulations. National and State-level (in select St ates) competitions are offered each fiscal year. Beginning in fiscal year 2005, a Chesapeake Bay wa tershed component was added to CIG. In both FY 2005 and 2006, up to $5 million was availabl e for projects in the Bay watershed. In addition, Pennsylvania admini stered a separate State- level competition in FY 2006.

Section II: Funding Availability

When is funding Available? NRCS announces funding availability each year. The timing is variable and contingent upon Congressional appropriations. Availability of funds is announced on the Grants.gov federal grants portal, as well as on the NRCS website.

Who is eligible? CIG applications will be accepted from State or local units of government, Federally recognized Tribes, non-governmental organizations, and individuals. Applications are accepted from all 50 States, the Cari bbean Area (Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands), and the Pacific Basin Area (Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands). Proposed projects must invol ve EQIP-eligible producers.

Amount of Assistance provided for FY 06 in MD, PA, VA, DC, DE, WV, NY (CB Watershed)? $4.1 million

Amount of Assistance provided in past three years to CB watershed per state? FY 2005--$4.25 million

2425 CBP 2005 Federal Spending Inventory (see Appendix C): $ 4,500,000 included in direct spending.

Cost Share Requirements: CIG applicants may request no more th an 50% of the total project cost.

Authority: A uthorized in the 2002 Farm Bill

Funding criteria/rating system: Applications are ranked by peer reviewers according to criteria published in the annual funding

announcement.USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

Conservation Security Program (CSP)

Section I: Program Overview

Funding Program Name: Conservation Security Program (CSP) Agency: USDA NRCS

Contact information: Landowners can contact their local US DA Service Center for information about enrolling in CSP. Contact information for USDA Service Centers is available at http://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app

Established: Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (Farm Bill) of 2002.

Description: The Conservation Security Program (CSP) is a voluntary conservation program that supports ongoing stewardship of private ag ricultural lands by providing payments for maintaining and enhancing natural resources. CSP identifies and rewards those farmers and ranchers who are meeting the hi ghest standards of c onservation and environmental management on their operations.

CSP provides financial and techni cal assistance to promote the c onservation and improvement of soil, water, air, energy, plant and animal life, and other conservation purposes on Tribal and private working lands. Working lands include cropland, grassland, prairie land, improved pasture, and range land, as well as forested land that is an inci dental part of an agriculture operation.

Section II: Funding Availability

When is funding Available? NRCS announces a CSP signup once each fiscal year. The timing is variable and contingent upon Congressional appropriations.

Who is eligible? CSP is implemented in select waters heds throughout the nation each year. Producers in participating wa tershed must meet the basic CSP eligibility criteria:

• The land must be privately owned or Tribal land and the majority of the land must be located

within one of the selected watersheds.

• The applicant must be in compliance with highly erodible and wetland provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985, have an active inte rest in the agricultura l operation, and have

control of the land for th e life of the contract.

• The applicant must share in th e risk of producing any crop or livestock and be entitled to a share in the crop or livestock marketed from the operation.

Amount of Assistance provided for FY 06 in MD, PA, VA, DC, DE, WV, NY (CB Watershed)? $5,263,814 (State totals, not CB watershed-specific)

Amount of Assistance provided in past three years to CB watershed per state?

Totals for CB watershed States: 2005--$9,512,872 2004--$366,747 2003--$0 (no program)

2627 CBP 2005 Federal Spending Inventory (see Appendix C): $7,100,788 included in indirect spending.

Cost Share Requirements: CSP contract payments include one or more of the following:

• An annual stewardship component for the ex isting base level conservation treatment.

• An annual existing practice component for the ma intenance of existing conservation practices.

• An enhancement component for exceptional conservation effort and additional conservation practices or activities that pr ovide increased resource benefits beyond the prescribed level.

• A one-time new practice component for additional needed practices.

Total payments are determined by the tier of participation, conservation treatments completed, and the acres enrolled:

• For Tier I, contracts are for 5 y ears; maximum payment is $20,000 annually.

• For Tier II, contracts are for 5 to 10 years; maximum payment is $35,000 annually.

• For Tier III, contracts are for 5 to 10 years; maximum payment is $45,000 annually.

Authority: Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (Farm Bill) of 2002.

Funding criteria/rating system: Applications are ranked an d contracts awarded by NRCS National Headquarters.

NRCS Partners: State Departments of Agricultur e, Conservation Districts.

National CSP Website: www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/cspUSDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA)

Section I: Program Overview

Funding Program Name: Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA) Agency: USDA NRCS

Contact information: Landowners can contact their local USDA Service Center to request assistance through CTA. Contact information for USDA Service Centers is available at http://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app

Established: Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1935.

Description: The Conservation Technical Assistance Program (CTA) is a voluntary program that provides technical assist ance supported by science-based t echnology and tools to help people conserve, maintain, and improve their natural resources.

NRCS is the principal USDA agency for providing conservation technical assistance to private landowners, conservation districts, tribes, and other organizations through a national network of locally respected, technically skilled, professional conservatio nists. These conservationists deliver consistent, science-base d, site-specific solutions to he lp private landowners voluntarily conserve, maintain, and improve the Nation's natural resource base.

The Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA) Program is the foundation of this conservation

technical assistance and serves to focus on natural resource issues at the lo cal level that are of local, State, multi-state, and national concern. The CTA Program works in partnership with locally led decision-making processes and other conservation programs to augment the Federal

investment in order to address national priorities in concert wi th local and State needs most effectively. The CTA Program is the foundation for much of the Nation's private lands and

Indian lands conservation assistan ce infrastructure and brings to bear the technical expertise to get sound conservation solutions applied on the ground.

Section II: Funding Availability

When is funding Available? There is no direct financial assi stance available through CTA. Landowners may request technical assistance at any time by visiting their local USDA Service

Center.

Who is eligible? All owners and managers of private la nd are eligible to receive technical

assistance from NRCS.

Amount of Assistance provided for FY 06 in MD, PA, VA, DC, DE, WV, NY (CB Watershed)? $42,207,492 (State totals, not CB watershed-speci fic. These figures are not final.) For many years, NRCS has received a$6,000,000 Chesapeake Bay annual earmark through CTA, however, because of the congressi onal continuing resolution of the budget for FY07, it is unclear

whether these funds will be available.

Amount of Assistance provided in past three years to CB watershed per state? Totals for CB watershed States: 2005--$40,496,631

28 2004--$44,273,45929 2003--$41,603,900

CBP 2005 Federal Spending Inventory (see Appendix C): $18,044,830 included as direct and indirect spending.

Cost Share Requirements: N/A

Authority: Soil Conservation Domestic Act of 1935.

Funding criteria/rating system: N/A

NRCS Partners: State Departments of Agricultur e, Conservation Districts.

National CSP Website: www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/ctaUSDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)

Section I: Program Overview

Funding Program Name: Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) Agency: USDA NRCS

Contact information: Each NRCS State Office has a progr am manager in charge of EQIP.

Landowners can contact their local USDA Service Ce nter for information about enrolling in the

program. Contact information can be found at: http://offices.sc.e gov.usda.gov/locator/app

Established: 1996 Farm Bill

Description: The Environmental Quality Incentives Progr am (EQIP) was reauthorized in the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Farm Bill) to provide a voluntary conservation program for farmers and ranchers that promotes agricultural production and environmental quality as compatible national goals . EQIP offers financial and tec hnical help to assist eligible participants install or implement structural a nd management practices on eligible agricultural

land.

EQIP offers contracts with a minimum term that ends one year after the implementation of the last scheduled practices and a maximum term of ten years. These cont racts provide incentive payments and cost-shares to implement conser vation practices. Persons who are engaged in livestock or agricultural producti on on eligible land may particip ate in the EQIP program. EQIP activities are carried out according to an envi ronmental quality incentives program plan of operations developed in conjunc tion with the producer that identifies the appropriate conservation practice or practices to address the resource concerns . The practices are subject to NRCS technical standards adapte d for local conditions. The local conservation district approves the plan.

An individual or entity may not receive, directly or indirectly, cost-share or incentive payments that, in the aggregate, exceed $450,000 for all EQ IP contracts entered during the term of the

Farm Bill.

Section II: Funding Availability

When is funding Available? NRCS announces funding availability each year. The timing is variable and contingent upon C ongressional appropriations. La ndowners may submit an EQIP application at any time during the year.

Who is eligible? Producers who are engaged in crop or livestock production on eligible land are eligible for the program. Eligible land includes cropland, rangela nd, pasture, private nonindustrial forestland, and other farm or ranch lands, as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture. Amount of Assistance provided for FY 06 in MD, PA, VA, DC, DE, WV, NY (CB Watershed)? $31,017,544 (State totals, not CB watershed-specific.)

Amount of Assistance provided in past three years to CB watershed per state?

3031 Totals for CB watershed States: 2005--$54,499,193 2004--$49,962,864 2003--$42,574,276

Federal Inventory Indirect Spending 2005 (see Appendix C): $30,695,222 included as indirect spending.

Cost Share Requirements: Landowner cost-share varies by State and conservation practice. Limited resource or beginning farmers and ranchers are generally eligible for higher cost-share

rates.

Authority: Reauthorized in the 2002 Farm Bill

Funding criteria/rating system: Applications are ranked accordi ng to criteria de veloped at the

State or local level. These criteria are posted on each NRCS State website.

NRCS Partners: State Departments of Agriculture, Conser vation Districts. Some States offer co-cost sharing opportuniti es between EQIP and State/local programs.USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP)

Section I: Program Overview

Funding Program Name: Farm and Ranch Lands Pr otection Program (FRPP) Agency: USDA NRCS

Contact information: Landowners can contact participating land preservation entities or their

local USDA Service Center for information about enrolling in the program. Contact information

for USDA Service Centers is available at http://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app

Established: Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act (Farm Bill) of 1996.

Description: The Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Pr ogram (FRPP) is a voluntary program that helps farmers and ranchers keep their land in agriculture . The program provides matching funds to State, Tribal, or local governments and non-governmental organizations with existing farm and ranch land protection programs to purchase conservation easements.

USDA works through State, Tribal, and local governments and non-governmental organizations to implement the FRPP. These entities acqui re conservation easements from landowners. Participating landowners agree not to convert their land to non-agr icultural uses and to develop and implement a conservation plan for any hi ghly erodible land. All highly erodible lands enrolled must have a conservation plan devel oped based on the standards in the NRCS Field Office Technical Guide and approve d by the local conservation dist rict. Landowners retain rights to use the property for agriculture.

Section II: Funding Availability

When is funding Available? NRCS announces funding availability each year through a request for proposals (RFP). The timing is variable and contingent upon Congressional appropriations.

Who is eligible? To qualify for FRPP, the land offered must be part or all of a farm or ranch and

must:

• Contain prime, unique, or other productiv e soil or historical or archaeological

resources;

• Be included in a pending offer from a St ate, Tribal, or local government or non- governmental organization’ s farmland protection program;

• Be privately owned;

• Be covered by a conservation plan for any highly erodible land;

• Be large enough to sustain agricultural production;

• Be accessible to markets for what the land produces;

• Be surrounded by parcels of land that can support long-term ag ricultural production;

and

• Be owned by an individual or entity th at does not exceed the Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) limitation.

32 Amount of Assistance provided for FY 06 in MD, PA, VA, DC, DE, WV, NY (CB Watershed)? $13,382, 499 (State totals, not CB watershed-sp ecific. This number is an estimate and is not final)33 Amount of Assistance provided in past three years to CB watershed per state?

Totals for CB watershed States: 2005--$27,163,885 2004--$19,834,269 2003--$16,641,294

Cost Share Requirements: The FRPP share of the easement cost must not exceed 50 percent of the appraised fair market value of the conservation easement. As part of it s share of the cost of purchasing a conservation easement, a State, Tribal, or local governme nt or nongovernmental organization may include a charitable donation by the landowner of up to 25 per cent of the appraised fair market value of the conservation easement. As a minimum, a cooperati ng entity must provide, in cash, 25 percent of the appraised fair market value or 50 percent of the purchase price of the conservation easement.

Authority: Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (Farm Bill) of 2002.

Funding criteria/rating system: Applications are ranked accord ing to both National and State

criteria. These criteri a are included in the a nnual request for proposals.

NRCS Partners: State, Tribal, and local governments a nd non-governmental organizations that purchase and administer conservation easements.

National AMA Website: www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/frppUSDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

Grassland Reserve Program (GRP)

Section I: Program Overview

Funding Program Name: Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) Agency: USDA NRCS

Contact information: Landowners can contact their local US DA Service Center for information about enrolling in the program. Contact inform ation for USDA Service Centers is available at http://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app

Established: Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (Farm Bill) of 2002.

Description: The Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) is a voluntary program that helps landowners and operators restore and protect grassland, including ra ngeland, pastureland, shrubland, and certain other lands, while mainta ining the areas as grazing lands. The program emphasizes support for working grazing opera tions; enhancement of plant and animal biodiversity; and protection of grassland and la nd containing shrubs and forbs under threat of conversion to cropping, urban development, and other activities that threaten grassland

resources.

GRP offers several enrollment options, including easements, rental agreements, and restoration

agreements.

Section II: Funding Availability

When is funding Available? GRP has exhausted its authorized funding in the 2002 Farm Bill. At this time, there is no financia l assistance availa ble through GRP.

Who is eligible? Landowners who can provide clear title on privately owned lands are eligible to participate for either easement option. Landowne rs and others who have general control of the acreage may submit an application for a rental agreement.

There is no national maximum limitation on the amount of land that may be enrolled by a participant in the program. Howe ver, there is a minimum requirement established in law.

Offers for enrollment must contain at least 40 contiguous acres, unless special circumstances exist to accept a lesser amount. These special ci rcumstances are determined by the NRCS State

Conservationist.

Eligible land includes privately owned and Tr ibal lands, such as grasslands; land that contains forbs (including improved rangeland and pa stureland or shrubland) ; or land that is located in an area that historically has been dominated by grassland, forbs, or shrubland that has the potential to serve as wildlife habitat of si gnificant ecological value. Incidental lands may be included to allow for the efficient administration of an agreement or

easement.

Amount of Assistance provided for FY 06 in MD, PA, VA, DC, DE, WV, NY (CB Watershed)? $0 (GRP has exhausted its author ized funding in the 2002 Farm Bill)

34 Amount of Assistance provided in past three years to CB watershed per state?35 Totals for CB watershed States: 2005--$570,272 2004--$1,110,292 2003--$1,376,510

Federal Inventory Spending 2005 (see Appendix C): $2,334,111 included as indirect spending.

Cost Share Requirements: GRP cost-share payments vary by contract type:

• Permanent Easement . This is a conservation easement in perpetuity. Easement payments for this option equal the fair mark et value, less the gra ssland value of the

• land encumbered by the easement. These values will be determined using an appraisal.

• Thirty-year Easement . USDA will provide an easement payment equal to 30 percent of: the fair market value of the land, less the grassland value of the land of the land encumbered by the easement. For both easement options, USDA will provide all administrative costs associated with recording the easement, including appraisal fees, survey costs, title insurance, and reco rding fees. Easement payments may be provided, at the participant’s request, in lump sum or annual payments (equal or unequal amounts) for up to 10 years.

• Rental Agreement . Participants may choose a 10-y ear, 15-year, 20-year, or 30-year contract. USDA will provide annual payments in an amount that is not more than 75 percent of the grazing value of the land covered by the ag reement for the life of the agreement. Payments will be disbursed on the agreement anniversary date each year.

• Restoration agreement . An approved grassland resource management plan identifying required restoration act ivities will be incorporated within the rental agreement or easement. NRCS may provide up to 90 percen t of the restoration costs on lands that have never been cultivated, and up to 75 per cent of the cost on restored grasslands and shrub lands that were previously cropped. Participants will be paid upon

certification of the completion of the approved practice( s). Participants may contribute to the application of a cost-share practice through in-kind contributions. The combined total cost-share provided by Federal or State Governments may not exceed 100 percent of

the total actual cost of restoration.

Authority: Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (Farm Bill) of 2002.

Funding criteria/rating system: Applications are ranked accordi ng to criteria de veloped at the

State or local level. These criteria are posted on each NRCS State website.

NRCS Partners: State Departments of Agriculture, Conservation Districts.

National GRP Website: www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/grpUSDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP)

Section I: Program Overview

Funding Program Name: Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) Agency: USDA NRCS

Contact information: Landowners can contact their local US DA Service Center for information about enrolling in the program. Contact inform ation for USDA Service Centers is available at http://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app

Established: Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act (Farm Bill) of 1996.

Description: The Wetlands Reserve Program is a vol untary program offering landowners the opportunity to protect, restore, and enhance wetlands on th eir property. NRCS provides technical and financial support to help landowners with their wetland restoration efforts. NRCS’ goal is to achieve the gr eatest wetland functions and values, along with optimum wildlife habitat, on every acre enrolled in the program. This program offers landowne rs an opportunity to establish long-term conservation an d wildlife practices and protection.

WRP is available in all Chesapeake Bay watershe d states. There are three program participation options: 10-year restoration cost-share agr eements, 30-year conservation easements, and

permanent easements.

Section II: Funding Availability

When is funding Available? NRCS announces funding availability each year. The timing is variable and contingent upon C ongressional appropriations. Landowners may work with their local USDA Service Center to develop a WRP application at any time during the year.

Who is eligible? To offer a conservation easement, the la ndowner must have owned the land for at least 12 months prior to enrolling it in the program, unless the land was inherited, the landowner exercised the landowner’s right of redemp tion after foreclosure, or the landowner can prove the land was not obtained for the purpose of enrolling it in th e program. To participate in a restoration cost-share agreement, the la ndowner must show evidence of ownership.

To be eligible for WRP, land must be restorable and suitable for wildlife benefits. Potentially appropriate types of land include:

• Wetlands farmed under natural conditions;

• Farmed wetlands;

• Prior converted cropland;

• Farmed wetland pasture;

• Farmland that has become a we tland as a result of flooding;

• Range land, pasture, or production forest la nd where the hydrology ha s been significantly degraded and can be restored;

• Riparian areas which link protected wetlands;

• Lands adjacent to protected wetl ands that contribute significan tly to wetland functions and values; and

• Previously restored wetlands th at need long-term protection.

3637 Ineligible land includes wetlands converted after December 23, 1985; lands with timber stands

established under a Conservation Reserve Program contract; Fede ral lands; and lands where conditions make restoration impossible.

Amount of Assistance provided for FY 06 in MD, PA, VA, DC, DE, WV, NY (CB Watershed)? $8,218,024 (State totals, not CB watershed-sp ecific. Also, this number is not final)

Amount of Assistance provided in past three years to CB watershed per state?

Totals for CB watershed States: 2005--$6,924,748 2004--$8,292,065 2003--$7,661,746

Federal Inventory Spending 2005 (see Appendix C): $2,372,520 included as indirect spending.

Cost Share Requirements: NRCS cost-share payments vary by contract type:

• Permanent Easement . This is a conservation easement in perpetuity. Easement payments for this option equa l the lowest of three amounts: the agricultural value of the land, an established payment cap, or an amount offered by the landowner. In addition to paying for the easement, USDA pa ys 100 percent of the costs of restoring

the wetland.

• 30-Year Easement . Easement payments through this option are 75 percent of what would be paid for a permanent easement. USDA also pays up to 75 percent of restoration costs. For both permanent and 30-year easements, USDA pays all costs associated with recording the easement in the local land records office, including recording fees, charges for abstracts, survey and appraisal fees, and title insurance.

• Restoration Cost-Share Agreement . This is an agreement (generally for a minimum of 10 years) to re-establish degraded or lo st wetland habitat. USDA pays up to 75 percent of the cost of the restoration ac tivity. This enrollment option does not place an easement on the property. Other agenci es, conservation districts, and private conservation organizations may provide addi tional incentive payments as a way to

reduce the landowner’s share of the costs. Such special partnership efforts are encouraged.

Authority: Reauthorized in the 2002 Farm Bill

Funding criteria/rating system: Applications are ranked accordi ng to criteria de veloped at the

State or local level. These criteria are posted on each NRCS State website.

NRCS Partners: State Departments of Agriculture, C onservation Districts, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, non-profit organizations.USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP)

Section I: Program Overview Funding Program Name: Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) Agency: USDA NRCS

Contact information: Each NRCS State Office has a WHIP program manager. Landowners can

contact their local USDA Service Center for information about enrolling in the program.

Established: 1996 Farm Bill

Description: The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) is a voluntary program that encourages creation of high qua lity wildlife habitats that support wildlife populations of National, State, Tribal, and lo cal significance. Through WHIP , NRCS provides technical and

financial assistance to land-owne rs and others to develop upla nd, wetland, riparian, and aquatic habitat areas on their property.

Section II: Funding Availability

When is funding Available? NRCS announces funding availability each year. The timing is variable and contingent upon Congressional ap propriations. Landowners, however, may submit a WHIP application at any time during the year.

Who is eligible? WHIP is available in all Chesapeake Bay watershed states. To be eligible, an individual or entity must own or have control of the land to be enrolled in the program for the duration of the agreement period. Eligible lands include privately owned land; Federal land when the primary benefit is on private or Tribal land; State and local gove rnment land on a limited basis; and Tribal land.

Amount of Assistance provided for FY 06 in MD, PA, VA, DC, DE, WV, NY (CB Watershed)? $1,281,602 (State totals, not CB watershed-specific.)

Amount of Assistance provided in past three years to CB watershed per state?

Totals for CB watershed States: 2005--$3,005,496; 2004--$2,701,486; 2003--$1,873,812

CBP Federal Inventory Spending 2005 (see Appendix C): $1,634,931 included as indirect spending.

Cost Share Requirements: Landowner cost-share varies by State and conservation practice. Maximum cost-share assistance is 75 percent. WHIP agreements between NRCS and the participant generally last from 5 to 10 y ears from the date the agreement is signed.

Authority: Reauthorized in the 2002 Farm Bill.

Funding criteria/rating system: Applications are ranked accordi ng to criteria de veloped at the

State or local level. These criteria are posted on each NRCS State website.

NRCS Partners: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, State Departments of Agriculture, Conservation Districts, NGOs.

38US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Non Point Source Implementation Grants (319 Program)

Section I: Program Overview

Funding Program Name: Pennsylvania Nonpoint Source Implementation Grants (319 Program) Agency: EPA Region III, Water Protection Division Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protect ion, Bureau of Water Management Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Soil and Water Conservation

Contact information:

Fred L. Suffian Program Manager (3WP10) Nonpoint Source Pollution Program 1650 Arch Street, Phila PA 19103

Phone: 215-814-5753 Fax: 215-814-5753

Suzanne Hall, EPA PA NPS Coordinator

Mailcode: 3WP10

1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103

Phone: 215-814-5701

Russell Wagner, Chief

Non Point Source Section Bureau of Water Management PA Department of Environmental Protection

P.O. Box 8555 Harrisburg, PA 17105

Phone: 717-772-5642 Ann Carkhuff EPA Virginia and Maryland

NPS Coordinator

Mailcode: 3WP10

1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103

Phone: 215-814-5735

Rick Hill, Non Point Source Program Manager

Division of Soil and Water Conservation Virginia Department of Conservation and

Recreation 203 Governor Street, Suite 206 Richmond, VA 23219

Phone: 804-786-1798

Established: 1987

Description: Through its 319 program, EPA provides formula grants to the states and tribes to implement nonpoint source projects and programs in accordance with section 319 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Nonpoint source pollution re duction projects can be used to protect source water areas and the general quality of water reso urces in a watershed. Examples of previously funded projects include installa tion of best management practi ces (BMPs) for animal waste; design and implementation of BMP systems for st ream, lake, and estuary watersheds; basinwide landowner education programs; and lake project s previously funded under the CWA section 314 Clean Lakes Program.

Section II: Funding Availability

39 When is funding Available? Pennsylvania Department of E nvironmental Protection (DEP) issues a RFP for the Growing Greener, NPS Sec tion 319 and Coastal NPS programs in the late fall or winter to be submitted in early Februa ry. Grant recipients ar e selected and Growing Greener projects are announced in late summer early fall. Section 319 funding availability varies due to certain requirements that are requi red before a grant award can be made. Generally40 the NPS grant is awarded during th e summer, however, we are worki ng to make that date earlier in the year.

Virginia Department of Conservation and R ecreation (DCR) issues a RFP for NPS Section 319, Coastal NPS and State Water Quality Funds progra ms in late fall to be submitted by January.

Who is eligible? Business, Community/Watershed Gr oup, Nonprofit Groups, Educational Institution, Private Landowner, Conservation District, Local Government, State/Territorial Agency, Tribal Agency, Federal Agency

Amount of Assistance provided for FY06? PA (Entire State): $5,900,100

Amount of Assistance provided in pa st three years to CB watershed?

PA : FY 2003, 2004 and 2005: $8,193,522 total. An additional $4,591,293 were spent on projects that were funded statew ide. This additional money of ten funds staffing for the State Central office and regional offices, technical as sistance, education programs and other workplans which target the entire Commonwealth.

VA: $3,962,400

CBP Federal Inventory Spending 2005 (see Appendix C): $5,521,039 for the CBP Watershed
in the states of MD, VA, PA, DC, WV and DE included in Inventory.

Cost Share Requirements: States are required to provide 40% non-Federal match for whole grant. Recipients within state typically are re quired to provide 40% match for each project, but this may be negotiable with a given state."

Cost Share at State level distribution? 40%

Authority: Clean Water Act, Section.319

Funding criteria/rating system:

The states are required by EPA Guidance of 20 03 to provide the following information in their Watershed Plans (for waters heds that do not have a TMDL):

a. An identification of the causes and sources or groups of similar sources that will need to be

controlled to achieve the load re ductions estimated in this wate rshed-based plan (and to achieve any other watershed goals identified in the wate rshed-based plan), as discussed in item (b) immediately below. Sources that need to be controlled should be identified at the significant subcategor y level with estimates of the extent to which they are present in the watershed (e.g., X numb er 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 se diment control; or Z linear miles of eroded streambank needing remediation). b. An estim ate of the load reductions expected for the management measures described under paragrap h (c) below (recognizing the natural variability and the difficulty in precisely predicting the performance of management measures over time). Estimates shoul d be provided at the same level as in item (a) above (e.g., the tota l load reduction expected for dairy cattle feedlots; row crops; or eroded streambanks). c. A description of the N PS management measures that will need to be implemented to achieve the load re ductions estimated under paragraph41 (b) above (as well as to achieve other watershed goals identified in this watershed-based plan), and an identification (using a map or a description) of th e critical areas in which those measures will be needed to implement this plan. d. An estimate of the amounts of technical and financial assistance needed, associated costs, and/or the sources and authori ties that will be relied upon, to implement this plan. As sources of funding, Stat es should consider the use of their Section 319 programs, State Revolving Funds, USDA's E nvironmental Quality Incentives Program and Conservation Reserve Program, and other relevant Federal, State, local and private funds that may be available to assist in implementing this plan. e. An information/education component that will be used to enhance publ ic understanding of the project and encour age their early and continued participation in selecting, desi gning, 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 reas onably expeditious. g. A de scription 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 loading reductions are being achieved over time and substa ntial progress is being made towards attaining water quality standards and, if not, the criteria for determining whether this watershed-based plan needs to be revised or, if a NPS TMDL has b een established, whether the NPS TMDL needs to be revised. i. A monitoring component to eval uate the effectiveness of the implementation efforts over time, measured against the criteria established under item (h) immediately above.

More information can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/nps

______________________________________________________________________________ Section III: Funding Distribut ion Question and Answer

How do the HQ offices (Washington DC) det ermine the distribution of funds among the Regional offices? The allocation for each state is determined according to the NPS Guidance document available on the website. HQ begins w ith the total 319 funding a llocation and subtract at least 1/3% of the total appropriation for distri bution to Indian Tribes. The remaining funds are multiplied by the applicable state percentage, which for PA it is 2.95%.

How much discretion do regional offices/lead ag encies have in the distribution of funds to states, localities or watershed organizations? EPA awards the grant amount to the state, however Region 3 works with states to pre-revi ew potential projects to be submitted under the Section 319 application to identify if there are any plans that cl early do not meet the requirements of the NPS guidance.

How are priorities set for the distribution of funds in regional/lead offices? Is their a formula for how it is distributed? Is there a priori ties list of objectives or projects targeted?

Federal: Since 1999 section 319(h) funds have been aw arded to state nonpoint source agencies in two categories—incremental funds and base funds. Incremental funds, a $100 million portion that EPA has designated for the development a nd implementation of watershed-based plans and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for impaired waters, should be used to restore impaired waters. Base funds, funds other than incremental funds, are used to provide staffing and support to manage and implement the state Nonpoint Sour ce Management Program. Base funds help in implementing projects to identify and address non point source problems and threats, as well as funding activities that involve specific waterbodies in that state or statewide or regional projects. A portion of these funds (up to 20 percent) may be used for planning and assessment activities such as conducting assessments, developing TMDLs, and creating programs to solve nonpoint source problems. EPA has issued supplemental grant guidelines, in addition to the 1997 Nonpoint Source Guidance, that identify priority ac tivities to be funde d with section 31942 incremental and base funds. Applying for and Administering CWA Section 319 Grants: (EPA’s A Guide for State Nonpoint SourceAgencies, USEPA, 2003)

State: Currently, majority of Pennsylvania state f unds have been directed towards Abandoned Mine Drainage because the TMDLs and plans for AMD were ready to go and less complicated than BMPs. Virginia’s target for NPS funds is to delist waters on the impaired 303(d) list.

Is their a guidance document that guide applicants that is provided? If so, how often is it published and who is responsible for distribution and content? EPA’s most recent guidance regard ing the development of Watershed Based Plans in order to utilize Incremental funds was last published in October of 2003 and is the most recent document published by EPA HQ. The Guidance doc ument states in section III D: “ For projects funded
with incremental dollars, where a NPS TMDL for the affected waters has already been developed and approved or is being developed, th e watershed-based plan must be designed to

achieve the load reductions call ed for in the NPS TMDL. However, where a NPS TMDL has not yet been developed and approved or is not yet be ing developed for the waters, the State may use Section 319 funds to develop a wate rshed-based plan in the absence of the TMDL. In such cases, the plan must be designed to reduce nonpoint sour ce pollutant loadings that are contributing to water quality threats and impairments. Where fe asible, the plan should be designed to meet water quality standards. In this way, progress towards achieving water q uality standards continues even before a TMDL is established. Once the TMDL is completed and approved, the plan must be modified as appropriate to be consistent with the load a llocation portion contained within the TMDL.“

The complete guidance document can be viewed at: http://www.epa.gov/EPAWATER/2003/October/Day-23/w26755.htm

Additionally, states releases a RFP for the three programs each y ear which describes what types of projects are eligible for funds.

If not how do applicants get word of what is available and for what purpose? N/A

How are selections made?

PA : Selection of projects is made through the Growing Greener selection process and those applicants that are will ing to accept federal funding and meet EPA’s criteria are culled. First the PADEP Regional offices review the plans and w eed out those that meet the Growing Greener

criteria and those that don’t. Then there is a larger meeting where the Regional staff and Central office meet to go through the select ed plans. From these, best of the best, plans that meet the NPS criteria are selected for funding under Sect ion 319. PADEP then allows EPA to review their top choices to allow the opportu nity to remove any plans that don ’t appear to us to meet the criteria. Those plans selected are then allowe d to modify their workplans to meet any missing criteria and those that submit revised plans ar e selected for funding wh en the award is made.

Are their regional or geographic areas that are targeted? If not, why? Yes, those areas that have deve loped a watershed based plan ar e being targeted in order to

restore the watershed a nd meet designated uses.

What was the distribution of funds last ye ar (who got the money by sector)? PA: In 2005, 21 out of 39 funded projects were located in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.

Is it possible to determine watershed areas that were targeted?43 Incremental funds have been targeted in watershe ds that have developed a Watershed Based Plan meeting the NPS Guidance since 2003.

What type of environmental results (out comes) are included in award documents? Predicted load reduction estimates are require d with each watershed plan and with each individual workplan that is implem enting best management practices.

Section IV: Interviews Specific to State Tributary Strategies

Are you familiar with the state Tributary Strate gies developed to target implementation of

nutrient and sediment reducti ons for improved water quality? PA State coordinator is, however , the coordinator of the Chesapeake Bay Program in PA also reviews our plans and provides input.

In Virginia, all NPS programs are managed in the same office so coordination with Chesapeake Bay Program is strong. There is also a NPS Advisory Comm ittee, where NPS coordinators (federal and state) are participa ting. NPS plan in Virginia is also consistent with Bay Model

needs.

Currently going through a reorganization and ther e will be a new director that will have coordination responsibility.

How can your program guidance/rules be improve d to better focus on tributary strategies? Watersheds with tributary strate gies can alter their watershed-ba sed plans in order to meet the NPS Guidance Section III D (a)-(i) guidance criteri a (see above) and would then be eligible for Incremental funding from the NPS program.

Preliminary discussions are occurring in Virginia to examine those issues.

How can states and local stakeholders improve ability to compete with others to increase the % of funds being awarded to tributary strategy implementation? Currently, the target is not CBP state tributar y strategy implementation, as the guidance from EPA Hqs is the driver and TMDL is the vehi cle. However, the requirements in the 319 Guidance for watershed-based plans do contain requi rements that may be able to be fulfilled by the tributary strategies, based on a basin by basin review. Additionally, in the future it is the hope that PA NPS management program plan will be supporting more agricultural programs.

In the past there was more opportunity to fund more watershed based projects with watershed

association stakeholders. Prelim inary discussions are occurring in Virginia to examine these issues. VA is trying to enhance th e technical assistance available.

Are there examples of using these funds to he lp access additional f unding (leveraging)? PA

coordinates with other funds su ch as USDA’s EQIP to supplem ent 319 funds. Most funds are sought after by the same Counties that have been involved in the Bay program for many years.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA )

Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)

Section I: Program Overview

Program Information: Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) Agency: EPA, Region III

Division: WPD

Contact information: Magdalene Cunningham and Catherine King

Mailcode: 3WP50

1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103

Phone: (215) 814-2338 and ( 215) 814-2657, respectively.

Established: 1989

Description: EPA awards grants to states to capita lize their Clean Water State Revolving Funds (CWSRFs). The states, through the CWSRF, ma ke loans for high-pr iority water quality activities. As loan recipients make payments back into the fund, money becomes available again for additional loans to be issued to new applicants. CWSRF eligible projects include point source, nonpoint source and estuary protection pr ojects. Point source projects typically include construction (including upgrading, expanding and repairing) at wast ewater treatment facilities, combined sewer overflow and sanitary sewer overf low correction, urban stor mwater control, and water quality aspects of landfill projects. Nonpoint source proj ects include agricultural and silviculture best management practices, rural an d urban runoff control, repair and replacement of failing on-site wastewater disposal systems (sep tic tanks), land conservation, riparian buffers, and water quality aspects of leaking underground storage tank remediation, and Brownfields projects. Estuary protection projects include all of the above point and nonpoint source projects

as well as habitat restoration and ot her unique estuary projects. See: http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/index.htm for more information about the CWSRF

program.

In Region III, the state agencies that ma nage the CWSRF programs are as follows: Delaware Department of Natural Resour ces and Environmental Control (DNREC); Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE); Pennsylvania Infras tructure Investment Authority (PENNVEST); Pennsyl vania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP); Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ); Virginia Resour ces Authority (VRA); West Virginia Department of Environmental Pr otection (WVDEP); and the West Virginia Water Development Authority (WVWDA). Each state ha s a priority ranking syst em that is used to evaluate proposed CWSRF projects. The followi ng websites contain more information about the various state ranking systems: http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/water2000/Sections/FAB/FABLoans.htm

, http://www.mde.state.md.us/Programs/WaterPrograms/Water_Quality_Finance/index.asp

, http://www.pennvest.state.pa.us/p ennvest/cwp/view.asp?A=4&Q=72523

, http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/watersuppl y/cwp/view.asp?a= 1263&Q=448094&watersupplyNa v=|30198|#Financial

, http://www.deq.virginia.gov/cap/wwman.html , and

4445 http://www.dep.state.wv.us/item.cfm?ssid=11&ss1id=220 . OIA staff can provide copies of each state’s priority ranking system and are availabl e to discuss them if this would be helpful.

There is variation in the ways that st ates market their CW SRF programs.

Point Sources : For point source projects, PA holds m eetings six times a year for professional wastewater organizations and other interested parties. WV partne rs with the WV Infrastructure and Jobs Development Council, which provides financial coordination fo r the construction of water and sewer systems in all geographic areas of the state. DE, MD , and VA send solicitations requesting CW SRF applications to each waste water facility in the state.

Non point Sources: MDE works with the Maryland Depa rtment of Natural Resources to promote the use of CW SRF loans for non-point source projects. DNREC coordinates with its

CWA Section 319 staff and the USDA NRCS state offices to market the CWSRF for non-point source projects. PENNVEST works with the state housing authority to implement septic or “onlot” projects and with PA DEP Section 319 a nd Brownfields staff. VADEQ works with the USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) to promote ag ricultural non-point sour ce projects and with their Brownfields staff, as well. WVDEQ partne rs with the USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA)

and its CWA Section 319 staff.

Washington DC receives an annual grant from the U.S.EPA to fund the same type of projects implemented by the CWSRF in the states.

Section II: Funding Availability

When is funding available? Capitalization grants are made to the states on an annual basis. States make SRF loans throughout the year.

Who is eligible?

Point Sources: Local g overnment entities only

Non Point Sources: Businesses, Community/Wat ershed Groups , Nonprofit Groups , Private Landowners, Conservation Districts, Water and Wa stewater Utilities, Lo cal Governments, and State/Territorial/Tribal Agencies.

CWSRF Funds Provided for Projects (not Bay Watershed Specific) from 1989 to 6/30/05 (millions of dollars): Federal Total (includes stat e contributions and interest)

Delaware $107.2 $160.3 Maryland $544.2 $1,027.7 Pennsylvania $894 $1,403.6 Virginia $552.9 $1,451.1

CBP Federal Inventory Spending 2005 (see Appendix C):

FY 2005 SRF Spending from State Reports

State 212 Program (Municipal Waste Water Treatment) Non Point Sources46 DC $5,243,500 (grant) 0

DE $2,841,680 $191,847*

MD $24,507,743 $3,345,325

PA 0 0

VA $3,275,000 $4,036,869 A

WV 0 $223,656*

TOTAL $35,867,923 $7,797,697

* - Calculated using % of co unty in the CB watershed.

A – Entire state.

For additional CWSRF fina ncial information, see: http://www.epa.gov/r5water/cwsrf/

.

Cost Share Requirements: None

Authority: Clean Water Act, sections. 601-607, Public Law 95-217

Funding Criteria/Rating system: Each state develops a priority projects list that is submitted

to EPA for review.

______________________________________________________________________________ Section III: Funding Distribut ion Question and Answer:

How do the HQ offices (Washington DC) det ermine the distribution of funds among the Regional offices? The allocation of grant funds from the Clean Water Act contains the formula by which the U.S. EPA allocates the Federal Appropriation for the CWSRF state programs

.

How much discretion do regional offices have in the distribution of funds to states, localities or watershed organizations? States establish priority systems with which they review and rank projects annuall y. U.S. EPA Regions II and I II review and accept the states’ priority systems. The states generally fund pr ojects in priority orde r, although this is not required by the CWA.

How are priorities set for th e distribution of funds? Is their a formula for how it is distributed? Is there a prioriti es list of objectives or projects targeted? Each state establishes its own ranking system based on its wa ter quality priorities. Generally, point source projects required by Consent Orders or impac ting streams with TMDLs receive higher rankings.

Is their a guidance document to guide applicants that is provided? If so, how often is it published and who is responsible for distribution and content? This information may be found on the websites referenced on page one for each state.

If not, how do applicants get word of what is available and for what purpose? N/A47 How are selections made? Generally, projects are selected for funding based on established priority systems.

Are their regional or geographic areas that are targeted? If not, why? Each state develops a system to rank projects based on what it determ ines are its water quality priorities. Current priority systems in the states of Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia do not include geographic criteria for targeting funding. Delaware ’s system gives higher points for projects that are located within the geographic areas of the state where development is encouraged.

What was the distribution of funds last year (who got the money by sector)? Information is available by county within each state, but not by any other sector except what is specifically collected for the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

Is it possible to determine watershed areas that were targeted? Specific watersheds are not targeted by CWSRF programs

.

What type of environmental results (outcomes) do you expect? Expected environmental results are on a project by project basis. The U.S. EPA began collecting data on the

environmental results of indi vidual projects in FY 2005.

Section IV: Interviews Specific to State Tributary Strategies

Are you familiar with the state Tributary Strate gies developed to target implementation of

nutrient and sediment reducti ons for improved water quality? State CWSRF managers are fully aware of the Tr ibutary Strategies and generally include the goals of these strategies as part of their programs’ goals.

How can your program guidance/rules be improve d to better focus on tributary strategies? Virginia and Maryland already include state tri butary strategies and other Chesapeake 2000 goals in their Intended Use Plan (IUP), which is e quivalent to a workplan in grant programs.

Pennsylvania, West Virginia and (probably) De laware do not. Through the CWSRF process, the EPA SRF managers can comment on the IUP’s in the future to encourage states to include

coordination with state tributar y strategies. In addition, EPA’ s annual review of the Program Evaluation Report (PER) would serve as a catalys t for comments on state tributary strategies.

How can states and local stakeholders improve ability to compete with others to increase the percentage of funds being awarded to tributary strategy implementation? Local

stakeholders can increase the amount of CW SRF funds towards implementing Tributary strategies by: 1. Recognizing the usefulness of low-interest loans which have few “strings” attached as opposed to federal grant dolla rs that are accompanied by sometimes burdensome federal requirements;

2. Partnering with local wastew ater treatment facilities, whic h can provide a guaranteed source for loan repayments; and

3. Encouraging local treatment facilities to move forward more quickly with implementing their permit requirements.48 Are there examples of using these funds to he lp access additional f unding (leveraging)? As discussed above, Virginia’s CWSRF levera ged its CWSRF funds in 1999, 2000, and 2004. Maryland’s CWSRF managers leveraged its gran t funds in the early 1990 ’s and they annually determine if additional leveraging is warranted based on each year’s demand for loan dollars.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Chesapeake Bay State Implementation Grants (CBIG)

Section I: Program Overview:

Program Name: Chesapeake Bay State Implementation Grants Agency: U. S. EPA Region III

Division: Chesapeake Bay Program Office

Contact information: Maryland: Danielle Algazi Chesapeake Bay Program Office

1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103

Phone: 215-814-2722 Pennsylvania and Virginia: Kyle Zieba Chesapeake Bay Program Office

1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103

Phone: 215-814-5420

District of Columbia Reggie Parrish Chesapeake Bay Program Office 410 Severn Avenue, Suite 109 Annapolis, Maryland 21403

Phone: 410-267-5772

Established: 1989

Description: As authorized in Section 117(e) of the Cl ean Water Act, (see authorization details below) EPA provides a portion of its Chesapeake Bay Program Office funds to the signatory jurisdictions. The signatory jurisdictions are members of the Executive Committee (EC) of the Chesapeake Bay Program that have signed Ch esapeake Bay Agreements that outline the commitments of the Chesapeake Bay Program part nership to restore th e Bay. The signatory jurisdictions include the Commonw ealth of Pennsylvania and Virg inia, Maryland and the District of Columbia. Along with the U.S. EPA and the Chesapeake Bay Commission, these EC members created a voluntary part nership to improve conditions of the Chesapeake Bay basin. The implementation grants are used by the jurisdic tions to enhance state funds to achieve state tributary strategies goals. The st rategies are long term goals fo r nutrient and sediment reductions to improve water quality, as outlined in the Ch esapeake 2000 agreement. Activities that are conducted under these grants incl ude the installation of best management practices, technical assistance to the agricultural community and development of nutrient management plans for

farms. These funds are also used to collect the required data necessary for the Chesapeake Bay Program Office to monitor progress.

Section II: Funding Availability

When is funding Available? Funding is usually available to each state by June of each year. States provide EPA with a workplan and a pplicant. These grants are not competed.

Who is eligible? Chesapeake Bay Program Signatory Jurisdictions

4950 Amount of Assistance provided for FY06?

MD, VA and PA anticipated award: $2,227,000 each

DC anticipated award: $767,000

Amount of Assistance provided in past three years to CB watershed per state?

FY05, FY04 and FY03: MD, VA and PA each awarded $2,287,000 per year. DC awarded $767,000 per year.

CBP Federal Inventory Spending 2005 (see Appendix C): In addition to CBIG, inventory included the entire CBPO budget in the EPA Direct Spending for a total of $20,772,400.

Cost Share Requirements: 50% cost share of total project costs (equal match/dollar for dollar)

Authority: Section 117(e) of the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000 authorizes EPA to award grants to signatory ju risdictions, specifically for Implementation Grants. The Implementation Grants are for the purpose of implementing the management mechanisms established under the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, such as ongoing state programs for control and abatement of non-point source pollution (inc luding atmospheric deposition as a non-point source).

Funding criteria/rating system: These grants are authorized by the CWA to the State Signatories of the Chesapeake 2000 Commitments and are not competed. The workplans are negotiated annually, and the objectives are all based on the implementation of Chesapeake Bay 2000 Agreement goals and achievement of state tributary strategies.

______________________________________________________________________________ Section III: Funding Distribut ion Question and Answer

How do the HQ offices (Washington DC) det ermine the distribution of funds among the Regional offices? The funds are appropriated by congressional authority.

How much discretion do regional offices/lead ag encies have in the distribution of funds to states, localities or watershed organizations? The Regional office has full discretion to distribute funds that are alloca ted to the states.

How are priorities set for the distribution of funds in regional/lead offices? Is their a formula for how it is distributed? Is there a priori ties list of objectives or projects targeted?

After initial funds are set aside for CBPO functions, such as staffing, office support and computer support, a majority of the remaining funds (about 40% of the overall CBPO funds) are distributed equally among the three signatory stat es of MD, VA and PA with a smaller portion going to the District of Columbia because of geographic scale.

Is their a guidance document that guide applicants that is provided? If so, how often is it published and who is responsible for distribution and content? A guidance document entitled “U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program51 Grants and Cooperative Agreement Guidance” is revised and distributed by the Chesapeake Bay Program Office annually. It can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/region03/ chesapeake/grants.htm

If not how do applicants get word of what is available and for what purpose?

N/A

How are selections made? N/A Are their regional or geographic areas that are targeted? If not, why? Each state determines where the funds are best used to meet the goals of the State Tributary Strategy

.

What was the distribution of funds last year (who got the money by sector)? In MD, 90% of the funds are used for the agricu ltural sector while 10% is targeted at point

source data collection and edu cation. In PA and VA, 100% is targeted at non point sources, primarily agriculture.

Is it possible to determine watershed areas that were targeted? Yes, the watersheds are all within the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

What type of environmental results (out comes) are included in award documents? States submit data to EPA from monitoring a nd implementation efforts. Monitoring efforts produce data on water quality and nutrient and se diment levels enabling EPA to track progress, estimate future pollution levels and assess the overall condition of the Bay. Implementation efforts produce data, such as the lo cation of and type of best mana gement practices installed, that EPA can use to estimate future pollution levels.

States also submit semi-annual reports to EP A detailing accomplishments during the grant project period. The States pr ovide information specific to eac h objective in their workplans include: a comparison of actual accomplishments w ith the anticipated reasons why anticipated outcomes were exceeded or not met, and info rmation on the rate of expenditure. Progress Reports and Work Plans are available for viewing at: http://www.epa.gov/region03/chesapeake/grants.htm

Section IV: Interviews Specific to State Tributary Strategies.

Are you familiar with the state Tributary Strate gies developed to target implementation of

nutrient and sediment reducti ons for improved water quality? Yes, and the state project officers are also familiar with the State Tributary Strategies.

How can your program guidance/rules be improve d to better focus on tributary strategies? This program’s focus is on the tributary strategies.

How can states and local stakeholders improve ability to compete with others to increase the % of funds being awarded to tri butary strategy implementation?

N/A Are there examples of using these funds to he lp access additional funding (leveraging)? These funds are being leveraged with state cost share requirements.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF)

Chesapeake Bay Targeted Watershed Grants Program (TWG)

Section I: Program Overview

Funding Program Name: Chesapeake Bay Targeted Watershed Grants Program Agency: US EPA/National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

Division: CBPO

Contact information: Amanda Bassow, 202-715-0711 or Kyle Zieba, 215-814-5420

Established: 2005

Description: The jurisdictions within the Chesapeake Bay watershed have agreed to meet aggressive nutrient reduction targets by 2010 through the development and implementation of Tributary Strategies in accordance with the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement . The Administration and Congress have responded to th is increased focus on the need to reduce nutrient loads to the Chesapeake Bay by appropriating nearly $8 million dollars in fiscal year 2005 through EPA's National Targeted Watersheds Grant Program . This funding supports innovative projects designed to foster nutrient reduction in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

The Chesapeake Bay Targeted Watersheds Grant Program is administered by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, under a co operative agreement with the Chesapeake Bay Program and, funding partner, the Chesapeake Bay Trust. Unde r the grant, the NFWF administers the program through the development of the RFP, the review criteria and process a nd awarding and managing

the sub-awards.

The overall goal for the Chesapeake Bay Ta rgeted Watersheds Grant Program is to expand the collective knowledge on the mo st innovative, sustainable an d cost-effective strategies - including market-based approaches - for reduci ng excess nutrient loads within specific tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay. To achieve this goal, the pr ogram has awarded grants of up to $1 million on a competitive basis to selected projects that target and reflect the diverse conditions (e.g., urban, rural, suburban) and sources of nutrients (e.g., agri cultural, stormwater, other non-point sources) that exist throughout the Chesapeake watershed. The program supported projects that:

3⁄4 Support implementation of water quality tradi ng demonstrations and other market-based strategies to reduce nutr ient loads to the Bay;

3⁄4 Promote the development of innovative, cost-eff ective approaches to f acilitate adoption of Best Management Practices (BMPs) or those that identify and implement strategies to overcome existing barriers to adoption of BMPs;

3⁄4 Demonstrate and ground-truth new BMPs or innovative technol ogies that support inclusion on the list of practices approved for use with in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model; and,

3⁄4 Foster implementation and evaluation of the most effective BMPs or nutrient reduction measures contained in state Tributary Strategies within small watersheds.

Section II: Funding Availability

5253 When is funding Available? Funding is dependent on Congr essional appropriation. Who is eligible? Eligible applicants are either non-pr ofit 501(c) organizations, universities, local or state governments (i.e ., state conservation agencies, counties, townships, cities, boroughs, conservation district s, planning districts, utility distri cts, drainage dist ricts, or other units of local government) from the Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, District of Columbia, New York, West Virginia, and Delaware portions of the Ches apeake Bay watershed. Non-profit organizations and universities located outside the Chesapeake Bay watershed may apply only if their projects will be conducted within the watershed. Individuals, federal government agencies, and private for-profit firms are not e ligible for grants under this program.

Amount of Assistance provided for FY 06 in MD, PA, VA, DC, DE, WV, NY CB

Watershed? In FY 2005, $7,936,000 was available for the ad ministration and sub-awards. In FY 2006, $5,561,700 is available for the ad ministration and sub-awards.

Amount of Assistance provided in past three years to CB watershed per state? N/A

Cost Share Requirements: 25% non-federal match

CBP Federal Inventory Spending 2005 (see Appendix C): FY 2005 $7,936,000 of the entire budget is included in EPA’s direct funding.

Authority: Authorization for the program comes from the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005 (P.L. 108-447) which directs th e Chesapeake Bay Program to establish "a regional pilot program for the Chesapeake Bay that shall demonstrate effective non-point source nutrient reduction approaches that target small watershe ds and accelerate nutrien t reduction in innovative, sustainable, and cost-effectiv e ways." The money is allocated through EPA’s 104(b)(3) authority.

Funding criteria/rating system: Projects will be reviewed, evaluated, and scored based on the following criteria:

• Innovation (20 Points) - Use of innovative approaches to foster cost-effective nutri ent reduction strategies (e.g. market based mechanisms or new BMPs)

• Environmental Results (20 Points) - Inclusion of a detailed monitoring and da ta collection strategy to obtain measurable environmental results (i.e. cost-effectiv e, sustainable, nutrient reductions); - Capacity to accelerate nutrient reduction ta rgets as outlined in applicable Tributary Strategies and other specific Chesapeake 2000 commitments

• Practical Solutions (30 Points) - Ability to expand the collective knowledge on the most innovative, sustainable, and

cost-effective nutrient reduction strategies - Feasibility: extent to whic h nutrient reduction strategies are technically sound, ready to go, and cost-effective - Sustainability: ability to sustain nutrient reduction capacity beyond term of the grant, including efforts to measure nutrient reductions - Transferability: extent to which the project’s nutrient reduction strategy is transferable to other targeted areas within the Chesapeak e Bay watershed and feasibility of scaling up a project’s strategies to the Ches apeake Bay watershed as a whole

• Partnerships (10 Points) - Existence of strong and diverse stakehol der stewardship and support (e.g. effective working relationships among public, priv ate, and non-profit organizations)54 • Dissemination (10 Points) - Demonstration of a clear strategy for sh aring the expanded colle ctive knowledge of cost-effective, sustainable, nut rient reduction strategies with relevant stakeholders within the Chesapeake Bay watershed

• Budget (10 Points) - Clearly presented and reasonable budget; - Ability to leverage funds from a broad range of sources and exceed the minimum 25% non-federal match requirement

______________________________________________________________________________ Section III: Funding Distribut ion Question and Answer

How do the HQ offices (Washington DC) det ermine the distribution of funds among the Regional offices? Congress appropriated funding for the National Targeted Watershed Program (administered by EPA HQ) and created the Ches apeake Bay Targeted Watershed Grant Program from that appropriation.

How much discretion do regional offices/lead ag encies have in the distribution of funds to states, localities or watershed organizations? EPA awarded a grant to the NFWF to administer the FY 2005 program and is working on awarding the FY 2006 grant to them as well. NFWF, under the grant, makes the official decisions on the sub-award program. The program is a competitive program and NFWF makes awards ba sed upon how well proposals meet the criteria

listed above.

How are priorities set for the distribution of funds in regional/lead offices? Is their a formula for how it is distributed? Is there a priori ties list of objectives or projects targeted? (see list of program supported projects above)

Is their a guidance document that guide applicants that is provided? If so, how often is it published and who is responsible for distribution and content? /A

If not how do applicants get word of what is available and for what purpose? A Request for Proposals is issued and distributed via the Ch esapeake Bay Program’s mailing list and posted on

the NFWF website.

How are selections made? NFWF makes the selections with input from a review panel that scores the proposals.

Are their regional or geographic areas that are targeted? If not, why? (see description above)

What was the distribution of funds last year (who got the money by sector)?

This information can be obtained at: http://www.nfwf.org/progr ams/targetedwatershed/

Is it possible to determine watershed areas that were targeted?

This information can be obtained at: http://www.nfwf.org/progr ams/targetedwatershed/

What type of environmental results (out comes) are included in award documents?

Eligible projects must be able to demonstrate r eal, measurable environmen tal results. Applicants must include information on anticip ated outputs (i.e. ac tivities and/or associated work products performed or conducted during the proposed funding period) and outcomes (i.e. results, effects,55 consequences of a recipient’s actions) for thei r projects. For the Chesapeake Bay Targeted Watersheds Grant Program, proposed outcomes shoul d be expressed in terms of the specific, quantifiable amount of nutrients to be reduced where applicable.

It is recognized that not all pr ojects designed to obtain nutrient reductions lend themselves to be able to detect statistically significant water quality improve ments through actual real-time monitoring. For example, it may take several ye ars for the nutrient reduc tion benefits of many agricultural BMPs to be noticed within receiv ing waters. Conversely, the benefits obtained through implementation of urban stormwater BMPs may be measured through a carefully designed water quality monitoring program. Acco rdingly, projects must include a plan to measure outcomes by employing either a monitoring or modeling plan to most accurately and efficiently measure project outcom es (i.e. lbs of nutrients rem oved). Projects must report these outcomes back to appropriate State/District ag encies and provide deta ils regarding long-term plans for implementation, management , and/or modeling if applicable. In addition to measuring environmental results, applicants should also provide information on how they intend to measure other outputs anticipa ted from projects (e.g., meetings with farmers to discuss BMP implementation).

Section IV: Interviews Specific to State Tributary Strategies

Are you familiar with the state Tributary Strate gies developed to target implementation of

nutrient and sediment reduction s for improved water quality? In considering a project’s effectiveness in reducing nutrients, benefits to both local water quality and the Bay will be considered. Applicants are encourag ed to review the various state Tributary Strategies which outline the specific reductions of pollutant loads needed to meet Bay water quality standards. Please note that funds gran ted under this program may not be used to support political advocacy, lobbying or litigation.

How can your program guidance/rules be improve d to better focus on tributary strategies?

NA

How can states and local stakeholders improve ability to compete with others to increase the % of funds being awarded to tributary strategy implementation? NA

Are there examples of using these funds to he lp access additional funding (leveraging)? Under the grant, NFWF stated that one of th eir goals in administer ing the program was to leverage additional funding. In FY2005, they pa rtnered with the Chesapeake Bay Trust and leveraged an additional $ 600,000 for projects in MD.US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

Section 510 Chesapeake Bay Environmen tal Restoration Protection Program

Section I: Program Overview

Funding Program Name: Section 510, Chesapeake Bay Envi ronmental Restoration and Protection Program Agency: US Army Corps of Engineers

Division: North Atlantic Division, Baltimore District

Contact information: Steve Garbarino, 410-962-6114

Established: Section 510 of the Water Res ources Development Act of 1996

Description: Available to provide environmental de sign and construction assistance to nonFederal interests in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. At least one project shall be established in each of the collaborating states (PA, MD, VA). Pr ojects completed thus far include wastewater treatment plant upgrades, shorel ine protection and stabilizati on, wetland restoration, and oyster

restoration.

Section II: Funding Availability

When is funding Available ? Funds are available as Congre ss appropriates funds each year. However, program is authorized to $10M and projects currently underway will utilize remaining

funds

, unless program limit is raised.

Who is eligible? Cost sharing partners in MD, PA, or VA. Cost sharing partners include states, counties, and similar entities.

Amount of Assistance provided for FY06? $2M

Amount of Assistan ce 2005? (See Appendix C) $1.182 Million direct spending.

Cost Share Requirements: Design and construction costs will be cost-shared at 75% Federal (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and 25% non-Fe deral (sponsor). Non-Fe deral share must be provided as cash or r eal estate credits.

Authority: Authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 to $10M

Funding criteria/rating system: The project must be beneficial to the Chesapeake Bay, in the Federal interest, and suppor ted by a non-Federal sponsor.

More detailed information can be viewed at: http://www.usace.army.mil/cw/cecwp/leg_manage/pdf/22Oct01HansenHRes.PDF

.

Section III: Funding Distribut ion Question and Answer

5657 How do the HQ offices (Washington DC) det ermine the distribution of funds among the Regional offices? Factsheets (decision documents) are prep ared for each project and approved by Corps HQ.

How much discretion do regional offices/lead ag encies have in the distribution of funds to states, localities or watershed organizations? The Baltimore District coordinates with VA, MD, and PA to determine priority projects.

How are priorities set for the distribution of funds in regional/lead offices? Is their a formula for how it is distributed? Is there a priori ties list of objectives or projects targeted? Thus far, there has not been a backlog of proj ects. Projects are impl emented on a first-come, first-serve basis if they meet the funding criteri a above. A prioritization system is in place for if/when the funding limit of $10M is raised. Prio ritization would be given to projects with the most environmental benefit for the least cost, and are sustainable.

Is their a guidance document that guide applicants that is provided? If so, how often is it published and who is responsible for distribution and content? NA—The Baltimore District coordinates with potential sponsors and submits the factsheet to HQ for approval.

If not how do applicants get word of wh at is available and for what purpose? NA

How are selections made ? See criteria above.

Are their regional or geographic areas that are targeted? If not, why? Chesapeake Bay watershed within PA, MD, and VA.

What was the distribution of funds last year (who got the money by sector )? PA and MD received funds based on the resp ective project phases (PA projec t in design, MD project in construction).

Is it possible to determine watershed areas that were targeted? NA

What type of environmental results (out comes) are included in award documents? NA

Section IV: Interviews Specific to State Tributary Strategies

Are you familiar with the state Tributary Strate gies developed to target implementation of

nutrient and sediment reduction s for improved water quality? Yes

How can your program guidance/rules be improve d to better focus on tributary strategies? Funding limit must be raised to provide for mo re projects focused on tributary strategy implementation.

How can states and local stakeholders improve ability to compete with others to increase the % of funds being awarded to tr ibutary strategy implementation? Recommend projects with large environmental benefits to the Baltimore District.

Are there examples of using these funds to help access additional funding (leveraging)? Possibly by the non-Federal sponsors.US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

Section 219 Environmental Infrastructure

Section I: Program Overview:

Funding Program Name: Section 219, Environmental Infrastructure Agency: US Army Corps of Engineers

Division: North Atlantic Division, Baltimore District

Contact information: Mary Y. Dan, 410-962-3377

Established : Section 219 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992, as amended

Description: Provides assistance to local commun ities for water- and sewer-related

infrastructure such as water and sewer lines and treatment facilities

Section II: Funding Availability

When is funding available? As Congress appropriates funds each year

Who is eligible ? Eligible counties in Pennsylvania are as stated in authorization. Cost sharing partners include townships, counties, and water/sewer authorities

Amount of Assistance provided for FY06 in PA: $1.95M

Amount of Assistance provide d in 2005 PA? (See Appendix C) $1.1M included as direct spending in the Chesapeake Ba y Federal Spending Inventory

Cost Share Requirements: Project costs are cost-shared at 75% Federal (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and 25% non-Federal (sponsor). Local share can be provided in cash or real estate

credits.

Authority: Authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 to $20M

Funding criteria/rating system : The project must be allowabl e and allocable within project

authorization and able to be financed by the local sponsor.

Section III: Funding Distri bution Question and Answer

How do the HQ offices (Washington DC) det ermine the distribution of funds among the Regional offices? Fact sheets are prepared for each project and approved by Corps HQ.

How much discretion do regional offices/lead ag encies have in the distribution of funds to states, localities or watershed organizations? The Baltimore District coordinates with potential sponsors in PA to determine priority projects.

How are priorities set for the distribution of funds in regional/lead offices? Is there a formula for how it is distributed? Is there a priori ties list of objectives or projects targeted? Projects are implemented on a first-come, first- serve basis if they meet the funding criteria

5859 above. Prioritization would be gi ven to projects that are in comp liance with NEPA, have secured HQ approval to execute a Project Cooperation Ag reement, and have sponsor funds in-hand.

Is there a guidance document provided to guide applicants? NA—The Baltimore District coordinates with potential sponsors and submits the factsheet to HQ for approval.

If not, how do applicants get word of what is available and for what purpose? Interested sponsors coordinate with their local congressman.

How are selections made ? See criteria above.

Are there regional or geographic areas that are targeted? Stated in authorization

What was the distribution of funds last year (who got the money by sector)? PA

Is it possible to determine watershed areas that were targeted? NA

What type of environmental results (outco mes) are included in award documents? NA

Section IV: Interviews Specific to State Tributary Strategies

Are you familiar with the state Tributary Strate gies developed to target implementation of

nutrient and sediment reduction s for improved water quality? Yes

How can your program guidance/rules be improve d to better focus on tributary strategies?

NA

How can states and local stakeholders improve ability to compete with others to increase the % of funds being awarded to tr ibutary strategy implementation? NA

Are there examples of using these funds to he lp access additional f unding (leveraging)? Possibly by the non-Federal sponsors.US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE )

Section 313 South Central Pennsylvania Environmental Improvement Program

Section I: Program Overview

Funding Program Name: Section 313, South Central Pennsylvania Environmental Improvement Program Agency : US Army Corps of Engineers

Division: North Atlantic Division, Baltimore District

Contact information: Kevin Brennan 410-962-6113

Established: Section 313 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992

Description: The Section 313 program provides environmental assistance to non-Federal public interests in south central Pennsylvania. Such assistance may be in the form of design and

construction assistance for water related environm ental infrastructure and resource protection and development projects, including projects fo r wastewater treatment and related facilities, water supply, storage, treatment and distribution facilities, and surface wa ter resource protection and development.

Section II: Funding Availability

When is funding Available? Availability is based on Congressional appropriations each year.

Who is eligible ? Public cost sharing pa rtners in Armstrong, Bedford, Blair, Cambria, Clearfield, Fayette, Franklin, Fulton, Huntingdon, Indiana, Juni ata, Miller, Snyder , Somerset Counties, PA. Cost sharing partners include County, Township s, Municipal Authorities, Boroughs, and similar

entities.

Amount of Assistance provi ded for FY06 CB Watershed? $4.4M

Amount of Assistance provi ded in 2005? (See Appendix C) $3.5M

Cost Share Requirements: Design and construction costs will be cost-shared at 75% Federal (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and 25% non-Federal (sponsor).

Authority: Authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 1992

Funding criteria/rating system: Project must be water related infrastructure supported by the local Congressional intere sts, in the Federal interest, a nd supported by a non-Federal sponsor.

Section III: Funding Distribut ion Question and Answer

How do the HQ offices (Washington DC) det ermine the distribution of funds among the Regional offices? This is a Congressionally added pr ogram and funds are divided 50-50 between the Chesapeake and Ohio watersheds. How much discretion do regional offices/lead ag encies have in the distribution of funds to states, localities or watershed organizations? The Baltimore District coordinates with potential sponsors in eligible PA counties.

6061 How are priorities set for the distribution of funds in regional/lead offices? Is their a formula for how it is distributed? Is there a prioriti es list of objectives or projects targeted?

N/A

Is their a guidance document that guide applicants that is provided? If so, how often is it published and who is responsible for distribution and content? NA

If not how do applicants get word of wh at is available and for what purpose? Coordination with the Congressional interests is recommended.

How are selections made? See criteria above

.

Are their regional or geographic areas that are targeted? If not, why? Yes, the program authority specifies certai n counties in Pennsylvania

What was the distribution of funds last year (who got the money by sector)? This program is exclusive to the specific Countie s in Pennsylvania identified above.

Is it possible to determine watershed areas that were targeted? NA

What type of environmental results (outco mes) are included in award documents? NA

Section IV: Interviews Specific to State Tributary Strategies

Are you familiar with the state Tributary Strate gies developed to target implementation of

nutrient and sediment reduction s for improved water quality? Yes

How can your program guidance/rules be improve d to better focus on tributary strategies? Funding limit must be raised to provide for mo re projects focused on tributary strategy implementation.

How can states and local stakeholders improve ability to compete with others to increase the % of funds being awarded to tr ibutary strategy implementation? N/A

Are there examples of using these funds to he lp access additional f unding (leveraging)? Possibly by the non-Federal sponsors.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Federal Assistance to State Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs

Section I: Program Overview

Funding Program Name: Federal Assistance to State Wildli fe and Sport Fish Restoration Programs Agency: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Division: Federal Assistance to State Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs

Contact information: USFWS, Div. of Federal Assistance, 300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley,

MA 01035 413-253-8508

Established: 1937

Description: The Program administers several grant-in-a id programs to State fish and wildlife agencies, including Pittman-Robertson Wildlif e Restoration, Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration, State Wildlife Grants, Landowne r Incentive Program, Cl ean Vessel Act, and Boating Infrastructure Grants. Section 6 Endangered Species and National Coastal Wetlands Conservation grants are co-administered in colla boration with the Service’ s Ecological Services

program.

Section II: Funding Availability

When is funding Available? Funding is available annually. Wildlife Restoration and Sport Fish Restoration are permanently-funded formula-driv en non-competitive apportionment programs. State Wildlife Grants are appropriated annually to States via a formula. The remaining programs are competitive. Apportioned programs typically mid-winter; competitive pr ograms mid- to latesummer.

Who is eligible? The State Fish and Wildlife Agency for Wildlife Restoration, Sport Fish Restoration, Endangered Species, State Wildlife Grants, and Landow ner Incentive Program. For the Coastal Wetlands and Clean Vessel Act prog rams, any State agency designated by the governor of a coastal state. A coastal state is a ny state that borders the Great Lakes, the Arctic, Atlantic or Pacific Oceans, Long Island Sound, or the Gulf of Mexico. Anyone can apply for a Boating Infrastructure Grant with authority from State government.

Amount of Assistance provided for FY 06 in MD, PA, VA, DC, DE, WV, NY CB

Watershed? MD: $5,144,584 PA: $17,836,547 VA: $10,406,824 DC: $1,271,167 DE: $4,884,192 WV: $6,236,049 NY: $16,612,160

Amount of Assistance provided in past three years to CB watershed per state?

Not available

62 2005 Federal Spending Inventor (Appendix C) : $1,614,624 included in direct spending.63 Cost Share Requirements: Variable per program: 75F/25S for Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration, Endangered Species, Clean Vessel Act, Boating Infrastructure, and Landowner Incentive Program; 50F/50S for State Wildlife Gr ant implementation and 75F/25S for planning; 50F/50S for Coastal Wetlands, except when criter ia for establishment of a State dedicated fund are met, the match is reduced to 25%.

Authority:

50 CFR Part 80

50 CFR Part 81

50 CFR Part 84

50 CFR Part 85

50 CFR Part 86 Interior Appropriations Legislation

Funding criteria/rating system: Criteria are described in enabli ng laws and regulations cited

above.

______________________________________________________________________ Section III: Funding Distribut ion Question and Answer

How do the HQ offices (Washington DC) det ermine the distribution of funds among the Regional offices? Funds for non-competitive programs are apportioned to individual States based on a national formula. Competitive program awards are made to individual states. Section 6 Endangered Species awards are provided to Regional offices based on a formula that considers numbers of listed species.

How much discretion do regional offices/lead ag encies have in the distribution of funds to states, localities or watershed organizations?

Little to no discretion on award amounts.

How are priorities set for the distribution of funds in regional/lead offices? Is their a formula for how it is distributed? Is there a priori ties list of objectives or projects targeted? Eligibility criteria are provided in the federal rules and enab ling legislation governing the individual programs.

Is their a guidance document that guide applicants that is provided? If so, how often is it published and who is responsible for distribution and content? Guidance is found at http://training.fws.gov

If not how do applicants get word of wh at is available and for what purpose?

Grants.Gov

How are selections made? Awards are made based on eligibil ity, substantiality, and compliance with federal regulations as provided for in enabling laws and rules.

Are their regional or geographic areas that are targeted? If not, why? No, with the exception of the Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Clean Vessel Act programs.

What was the distribution of funds last year (who got the money by sector)?64 Is it possible to determine watershed areas that were targeted?

No.

What type of environmental results (out comes) are included in award documents? Proposals must identify expected re sults and benefits. These are evaluated to ensure they are consistent with goals of the grant program in question, and commensurate with proposed costs.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act) Grant Programs

Section I: Program Overview

Funding Program Name: Cooperative Endangered Species C onservation Fund (Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act) Grant Programs Agency: U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

Division:

Contact information:

Established:

Description: The Cooperative Endangered Species C onservation Fund (CESCF) (Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act) provides funding to St ates and Territories for species and habitat

conservation actions on non-Federal lands. States and Territories must contribute a minimum non-Federal match of 25% for the estimated progr am costs of approved projects, or 10% when two or more States or Territories implement a jo int project. A State or Territory must currently have, or enter into a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to receive grant funds.

Four grant programs are available through th e CESCF, they include the “Traditional”

Conservation Grants and the “Nontraditional” Habitat Conservation Plan Land Acquisition, Habitat Conservation Planning Assistance, and Recovery Land Acquisition Grants.

“Traditional” Conservation Grants - The Conservation Grants pr ogram provides financial assistance to States to implement conservation projects for listed specie s and species at-risk. Funded activities include habitat restoration, sp ecies status surveys, public education, and outreach, captive propagation and reintroducti on, nesting surveys, genetic studies, and development of management plans. The projec t selection process is generally conducted by Service Endangered Species staff in conjunction with the States. Funding is allocated by formula to the Service Regions based on the number of species covered in the cooperative agreements with the States within that Region. Regional office s then further allocate th e funding to the States within that Region by formula or through a competitive process.

“Nontraditional” Programs: Habitat Conservation Planning (HCP) Assistance Grants - Through the development of regional Habitat Conservation Pl ans (HCPs), local governments in corporate species conservation into local land use planning, which streamlines the project approval process and facilitates economic development. The Habitat Conservation Planning Assistance Gr ants program provides funding to States to support the development of HCPs. Planning assistance grants may support planning activities such as document prepar ation, outreach, and baseline surveys, and inventories. Proposals for amendments to exis ting HCPs will not be accepted. The Habitat Conservation Planning Assistance Grants program first received funding in fiscal year 2001 of $6.635 million. In FY 2005, the Service awarded full or partial funding to 22 out of 29 eligible proposals to provide project f unding in 14 States. The funding for the Habitat Conservation Planning Assistance Grants is compet ed for at the National level.

6566 Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP ) Land Acquisition Grants - The HCP Land Acquisition program was established by Congress in fiscal year 1997. This program was designed to reduce conflicts between the conservation of listed speci es and land uses on spec ific parcels of land. Under this program, the Service provides grants to States for land acquisiti ons that are associated with approved HCPs. The Servic e considers the use of Federal acquisition dollars by States for habitat protection within and adjacent to HCP ar eas to be an important and effective mechanism to promote the recovery of threat ened and endangered species.

The HCP Land Acquisition program has three primar y purposes: 1) to fund land acquisitions that complement, but do not replace, private mitigation responsibilities contained in HCPs, 2) to fund land acquisitions that have importa nt benefits for listed, propose d, and candidate species, and 3) to fund land acquisitions that have important benefits for ecosystems that support listed, proposed and candidate species.

Recovery Land Acquisition Grants - Loss of habitat is the primary threat to most listed species and land acquisition is often the most effectiv e and efficient means of protecting habitats essential for recovery of listed species before development or ot her land use changes impair or destroy key habitat values. Land acq uisition is costly and often neith er the Service nor the States individually have the necessary resources to acquire habitats e ssential for recovery of listed species. Recovery Land Acquisition grant funds are matched by States and non-federal entities to acquire these habitats from willing sellers in support of approved species recovery plans. Because the existing HCP Land Acquisition Grants Program provides substantial funding for land acquisitions associated with HCPs, the Recovery Land Acquisition Grants Program will not be used to fund land acquisitions associated with permitted HCPs. The Recovery Land Acquisition Grant program firs t received funding in fiscal year 2001 of $10.427 million. In FY 2005, the program awarded approximately $13 million in funding to 28 projects in 20 States, with at least one propos al funded in each Service region. For fiscal year 2006, competition for the Recovery Land Acquisition gr ants will be held at the Regional level.

Section II: Funding Availability

When is funding Available? Information not available

Who is eligible? Participation in the CESCF programs is limited to State agencies that have a current cooperative agreement with the Secretary of the Interior. That is, only State agencies that have a cooperative agreement with the Secretary of the Interior may a pply directly for CESCF grant funding. However, indivi duals or groups (for example land conservancies, community organizations, or conservation organizations) may work with a State organization that has a cooperative agreement, on conservation efforts that are mutually beneficial, as a subgrantee. Grant agreements will be used to implement selected projects.

More information on all four grant programs go to: http://www.fws.gov/endangere d/grants/section6/index.html

Amount of Assistance provided for FY 06 in MD, PA, VA, DC, DE, WV, NY CB

Watershed?

Amount of Assistance provided in past th ree years to CB watershed per state? The program received $6 million in appropriated funds in each of its first 3 years (fiscal years 1997-1999). In fiscal year 2005, we received approximately $48 million and fully or partially funded 10 out of67 18 eligible proposals. A National competition will be held to select proposals for funding in FY

2006.

Cost Share Requirements: A proposal must include 25 per cent non-Federal cost share (the cost-share may be an in-kind contribution, in cluding equipment, materials, operations, and maintenance costs). This cost share decreases to 10 percent if 2 or more States or Territories are contributors to the proposal and its activ ities as per section 6 of the ESA.

As defined in the Fish and Wildlife Service Ma nual (521 FW 4.9), States may increase the rate of Federal participation from 75 percent to 90 pe rcent of total grant costs when two or more States cooperate to conserve an endangered or threatened speci es of common interest [50 CFR 81.8(a)].

Authority: The CESCF programs are authorized through Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq., as amended. The codified program regulati ons can be found at 50 CFR 81.

Section 6 can be viewed at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/ESA.html#Lnk06U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

State Wildlife Grants

Section I: Program Overview

Funding Program Name: State Wildlife Grants

Agency: U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

Division:

Contact information: Genevieve Pullis-LaRouche LaRouche, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 4020, Arlington, VA 22203. Email: genevieve_larouche @fws.gov. Phone: 703/358 1854.

Fax: 703/358 1837.

Established: Congress created the program in 2000. Funds appropriated under the State Wildlife Grants Program are allocated to every state according to a formula based on each state’s size and population.

Description: The State Wildlife Grants Program provide s federal dollars to every state and territory to support cost-effec tive conservation aimed at preventing wildlife from becoming endangered. The purpose is for stat es and territories to develop and implement programs for the benefit of wildlife and their habitat, including species that are not hunted or fished.

Section II: Funding Availability

When is funding Available?Annual appropriat ions with continous grant cycle throughout the year. Who is eligible? State and Territory. Each state/te rritory is required to submitted a comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy pl an if they accept fundi ng from this program.

Amount of Assistance provided for FY06 ? $61,521,358 nationally.

Amount of Assistance provided in past three years to CB wat ershed per state (figures are

entire state and not CB watershed based?

Enacted FY01-07 Enacted FY07 Maryland $5,562,537 $779,389 Pennsylvania $13,846,765 $1,940,127 Virginia $8,633,330 $1,209,668 District of Columbia $2,125,261 $297,779 Delaware $4,250,522 $595,557 New York $20,454,729 $2,865,971 West Virginia $4,250,522 $595,557

68 Cost Share Requirements: For planning-related grant activities , the States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Ri co must provide a minimum 25 percent match and a 50 percent minimum match for all other type s of eligible activities. The U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northe rn Mariana Islands do not have to provide matching funds.69 Authority: House Joint Resolution 20 authorizes 2007 a ppropriations at the level specified in the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006

For more information, go to: http://fed eralaid.fws.gov/swg/swg.html#AuthorizationNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)

Section I: Program Overview

Funding Program Name: Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) Agency: NOAA

Division: National Ocean Service, Office of Ocean a nd Coastal Resource Management, Coastal Programs Division

Contact information: John Kuriawa (410.267.5668)

Established: 1972

Description: The National Coastal Zone Manageme nt (CZM) Program is a voluntary partnership between the federal government and U.S. coastal states and te rritories authorized by

the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. The Coastal Programs Division, within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

, administers the program at the federal level and works with st ate coastal zone management

partners to:

• Preserve, protect, develop, and, where possible, restore and enhance the resources of the nation's coastal zone for this and succeeding generations;

• Encourage and assist the states to exercise e ffectively their responsib ilities in the coastal

zone to achieve wise use of land and wa ter resources, giving full consideration to ecological, cultural, historic, and aesthetic va lues, as well as the need for compatible economic development;

• Encourage the preparation of special area management plans to provide increased specificity in protecting significant natura l resources, reasonable coastal-dependent economic growth, improved protection of life and property in hazardous areas and improved predictability in govern mental decision-making; and

• Encourage the participation, cooperation, and co ordination of the public, federal, state, local, interstate and regional agencies, a nd governments affecting the coastal zone.

Thirty-four coastal and Great La kes states, territorie s and commonwealths have approved coastal management programs. Together, these programs protect more than 99 percent of the nation's 95,331 miles of ocean and Gr eat Lakes coastline.

To comprehensively manage the Nation’s coasta l resources and balance often competing land and water uses while protecting sensitive res ources, state and terr itorial coastal zone management programs are expected to:

• Protect natural resources;

• Manage development in high hazard areas;

• Manage development to achieve quality coastal waters;

• Give development priority to coastal-dependent uses;

• Have orderly processes for th e siting of major facilities;

• Locate new commercial and industr ial development in, or adja cent to, existing developed

areas;

• Provide public access for recreation;

70 • Redevelop underutilized or abandone d urban waterfronts and ports,71 • Preserve and restore hist oric, cultural, and aesthetic coastal features;

• Simplify and expedite governmental decision-making actions;

• Coordinate state and federal actions;

• Give adequate consideration to the views of federal agencies;

• Assure that the public and local governments ha ve a say in coastal decision-making; and

• Comprehensively plan for and manage living marine resources.

Section II: Funding Availability

When is funding Available? Funding to the state is availabl e from NOAA annually. Funds are allocated through cooperative agreements to the states which are issued by the NOAA Grants Management Division on either July 1 or October 1 of each year.

Disbursement of funds from the state to loca l or other recipients is dependent upon State priorities, allocation pr ocesses and/or RFPs.

Who is eligible? Only lead CZM Agencies of States a nd Territories with federally approved CZM Programs are eligible to r eceive cooperative agreements fr om NOAA. However, the lead CZM agency can pass through funds to other st ate, regional agencies or local governments identified to implement the program. In some instances the lead agen cy can pass through funds to NGOs (e.g., watershed groups), Academic institu tions and other recipients depending upon the activity and specifics of the RFP used.

Amount of Assistance provided for FY 06 in MD, PA, VA, DC, DE, WV, NY CB Watershed? (Not included in Appendix C spending) MD – $2,788,000 PA – $2,227,000 VA – $2,803,000

DC – 0 DE – $1,497,000

WV – 0 NY – $2,718,000

Amount of Assistance provided in past th ree years to CB watershed per state? This information is not likely tracked consistently by the States in the CB watershed, however, for the primary two states (MD and VA), nearly the en tire coastal zone boundary lies within the CB watershed, so the total amount of annua l funds can serve as a reasonable proxy.

Cost Share Requirements: For CZMA Section 306/306A and 310 (Coastal Nonpoint Implementation funds) a 1:1 match is required. For CZMA Section 309 funds no match is required.

Authority: Sections 306, 306A, 309, and 310 of the CZMA and amendments (16 USC §1451 et. al.)

Funding criteria/rating system: NOAA allocates federal CZMA funds among eligible states and territories using a formula based on shor eline mileage and population. Each state CZM Agency has unique allocation processes depending upon priorities.

______________________________________________________________________________72 Section III: Funding Distribut ion Question and Answer

How do the HQ offices (Washington DC) det ermine the distribution of funds among the Regional offices? There are no regional offices at NOAA in volved in the dist ribution of funds.

How much discretion do regional offices/lead ag encies have in the distribution of funds to states, localities or watershed organizations? State coastal programs receive the federal funds

and have discretion in their distribution.

How are priorities set for the distribution of funds in regional/lead offices? Is their a formula for how it is distributed? Is there a priori ties list of objectives or projects targeted? Federal funds are distributed to all participati ng coastal states and te rritories with approved coastal programs based on their size (miles of s horeline) and population. The statute contains maximum allowable amounts, which many states now receive. With regard to Coastal Nonpoint Program funding, NOAA has set some priorities for the Section 310 funding, such as promoting the development and implementation of “Clean Marina Programs,” but these “recommended

focus areas” are not absolute determinates of funding.

Is their a guidance document that guide applicants that is provided? If so, how often is it published and who is responsible for distribution and content? Yes, annual funding guidance and allocations are publishe d. In addition, there is guidance associated with each of the authorizing sections of the CZMA. NOAA (OCRM) is respons ible for its distribution and

content.

If not how do applicants get word of what is available and for what purpose?

How are selections made? Selections are made by the coasta l states and territories, not NOAA.

Are their regional or geographic areas that are targeted? If not, why? Varies by state.

What was the distribution of funds last year (who got the money by sector)? Not tracked.

Is it possible to determine watershed areas that were targeted? Yes, for states that are supporting watershed-oriented work.

What type of environmental results (out comes) are included in award documents? CZMA Performance Indicators are in the developmen t process and will be integrated into award documents and grant progress reports as data becomes available.

Section IV: Interviews Specific to State Tributary Strategies

Are you familiar with the state Tributary Strate gies developed to target implementation of

nutrient and sediment reduction s for improved water quality? Yes

How can your program guidance/rules be improve d to better focus on tributary strategies?

Coastal states determine their priorities in consultation with NOAA. Current CZMA guidance provides the necessary discretion to allow expenditures on tributary st rategies, if t hose strategies are determined to be a coastal pr ogram priority by a particular st ate. Maryland, for example, has used CZMA funds to support tributary strategies.73 How can states and local stakeholders improve ability to compete with others to increase the % of funds being awarded to tributary strategy implementation? Decisions regarding the % of fundi ng directed toward specific programs or issues are determined by the states with advice from NOAA.

Are there examples of using these funds to he lp access additional f unding (leveraging)? All of the NOAA CZMA funds are leveraged.National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA

National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)

Section I: Program Overview:

Funding Program Name: National Estuarine Research Reserv e System (NERRS) Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) Agency: NOAA

Division: National Ocean Service, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management,

Estuarine Reserves Division

Contact information: Cory Riley (603) 862-2813

Established: 1985 (Monie Bay) 1990 (Jug Bay and Otter Point Creek)

Description: The National Estuarine Research Reserves System is a network of 27 areas representing different biogeographi c regions of the United States th at are protected for long-term research, water-quality monitoring, education and coastal stewardship. Established by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, the reserve system is a partnership program between the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the coastal states. NOAA provides funding, national guidan ce and technical assistance. Each reserve is managed on daily basis by a lead state agency or univers ity, with input from local partners.

Reserve staff work with local communities a nd regional groups to address natural resource management issues, such as non-point source poll ution, habitat restorati on and invasive species. Through integrated research and education, the re serves help communities develop strategies to deal successfully with these coastal resource issues. Reserves provide adult audiences withtraining on estuarine issues of concern in their local communities. They offer field classes for K12 students and support teachers through profe ssional development programs in marine education. Reserves also provide long-term water quality monito ring as well as opportunities for both scientists and graduate students to conduct research in a “living laboratory.”

Goals and objectives for the National Estuarin e Research Reserve System for 2005-2010 include:

GOAL 1: Strengthen the protection and management of representative estuarine ecosystems

to advance estuarine conservatio n, research and education.

Objectives

1. Biogeographically and typologically representative estuarin e ecosystems are protected through the designation of new reserves. 2. Biological, chemical, physical , and community conditions of reserves are characterized

and monitored to describe referenc e conditions and to quantify change.

3. Reserve ecosystems are conserved th rough land acquisition, natural resource management and restoration

GOAL 2: Increase the use of reserve science and site s to address priority coastal management

issues.

74 Objectives75 1. Scientists conduct estuarine res earch at reserves that is re levant to coastal management

needs.

2. Scientists have access to NERRS datasets, science products and results.

3. The scientific community uses data, tool s and techniques genera ted at the NERRS.

GOAL 3: Enhance people’s ability and willingness to make informed decisions and take responsible actions that affect coastal communities and ecosystems.

Objectives

1. People are aware of the ecological, economic, historical, and cultural importance of

estuarine resources.

2. People understand how human choices and natura l disturbances impact social, economic, and estuarine ecological systems.

3. People apply science-based information when making decisions that could impact coastal

and estuarine resources.

Section II: Funding Availability

When is funding Available? Funding to the state is availabl e from NOAA annually. Funds are allocated through cooperative agreements to the states which are issued by the NOAA Grants Management Division on either July 1, Augus t 1, September 1 or October 1 of each year.

Who is eligible? Lead state agencies of a designated Na tional Estuarine Research Reserve.

Amount of Assistance provided for FY 06 in MD, PA, VA, DC, DE, WV, NY CB Watershed? (Not included in Appendix C spending)

MD – $470,000

PA – 0 VA – $560,000

DC – 0 DE – $470,000

WV – 0 NY – $560,000

Amount of Assistance provided in past three years to CB watershed per state? The Maryland NERR and the Virginia NERR are both within the CB watershed. The DE and NY

NERRs are not.

2004 MD-$555,000 VA- $555,000

2005 MD-$465,000 VA- $555,000

2006 MD-$470,00076 VA-$560,000

Cost Share Requirements: For CZMA Section 315 NERRS operations and land acquisition

awards there is a 70:30 federal/state match requirement. For NERRS land acquisition funding there is a 50:50 federal/state match requirement.

Authority: Section 315 of the CZMA and amendments (16 USC §1451 et. al.)

Funding criteria/rating system: Each reserve is eligible fo r a maximum of $560,000 dollars in federal funding for operating the research, educa tion, training and monito ring programs. A state may be eligible for less than this amount if they are not participating in system wide programs. Some years, additional funds are available for construction and land acqui sition. Funding criteria for acquisition and construction awards are publishe d each year in the Federal Register Notice.

______________________________________________________________________________ Section III: Funding Distribut ion Question and Answer

How do the HQ offices (Washington DC) det ermine the distribution of funds among the Regional offices? There are no regional offices at NOAA in volved in the dist ribution of funds.

How much discretion do regional offices/lead ag encies have in the distribution of funds to states, localities or watershed organizations? Lead state agencies receive the federal funds

and have discretion in their di stribution. Reserve funding must be spent on reserve research, education, training, monitoring, and operating cost s. There are funding targets associated with some national programs (System Wide Monitoring Program and the Coastal Training Program). Acquisition funds must be spent on parcels that the state intends to incorporate into the NERRS boundary. Construction funds must be used on faci lities that will be used by NERRS staff to further the goals set forth in their site management plan.

How are priorities set for the distribution of funds in regional/lead offices? Is their a formula for how it is distributed? Is there a priori ties list of objectives or projects targeted? See previous response

Is their a guidance document that guide applicants that is provided? If so, how often is it published and who is responsible for distribution and content? Yes, annual funding guidance and allocations are published. NOAA (O CRM) is responsible for its distribution and

content.

If not how do applicants get word of what is available and for what purpose? NA

How are selections made? Selections are made by the coastal states and territories, not NOAA.

Are their regional or geographic areas that are targeted? If not, why? National Estuarine Research Reserve funding must be spent on reserve ac tivities. Research and monitoring funds must be used within NERR bo undaries or for comparative research that supports understanding the reserve resources.

What was the distribution of funds last year (who got the money by sector)? All NERRS funds go to the lead state agency. In Maryland, the lead agency is the Department of Natural Resources and in Virginia it is th e Virginia Institute of Marine Science.77 Is it possible to determine watershed areas that were targeted? The Virginia NERR is

focused on the York River watershed and the Ma ryland NERR works within the Patuxent River, Bush River and Monie Bay watersheds.

What type of environmental results (outco mes) are included in award documents? NERR Performance Indicators are in the developmen t process and will be integrated into award documents and grant progress reports as data becomes available.

Section IV: Interviews Specific to State Tributary Strategies

Are you familiar with the state Tributary Strate gies developed to target implementation of

nutrient and sediment reducti ons for improved water quality?

How can your program guidance/rules be improve d to better focus on tributary strategies?

How can states and local stakeholders improve ability to compete with others to increase the % of funds being awarded to tributary strategy implementation?

Are there examples of using these funds to he lp access additional f unding (leveraging)? All of the NOAA NERRS funds are leveraged.National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

Coastal and Estuarine Land C onservation Program (CELCP)

Section I: Program Overview:

Funding Program Name: Coastal and Estuarine Land C onservation Program (CELCP) Agency: NOAA

Division: NOS/OCRM

Contact information: Elisabeth Morgan, 301-563-1166, elisabeth.morgan@noaa.gov

Established: CELCP was created by the Fiscal Y ear 2002 Appropriations Act for the Departments of Commerce, Justi ce and State (Public Law 107-77).

Description: The CELCP was established to help protect estuaries and coastal lands that are important to the nation’s environment, economy and communities. Such lands should have significant conservation, r ecreation, ecological, historical or ae sthetic values, and be threatened by conversion from their natural or recreational state to other uses. Priority is given to lands with significant ecological value and th at can be effectively managed and protected. Coastal states and local governments are eligib le to receive funding for project s that ensure conservation of these areas in perpetuity.

Section II: Funding Availability

When is funding Available? Since FY02, all funding appropriat ed for this program has been earmarked. As a result, funds have not been av ailable until after the annua l appropriations bill is signed into law. Generally, application developmen t occurs in the spring, with awards made in late summer/early fall. In FY06, Congress included report language in the Appropriations that directed NOAA to develop a list of projects that would be ready and el igible for funding in

FY2007. NOAA issued an RFP in November 2005 with applications due at th e end of the year. A ranked list of projects that met the program criteria was forwarded to Congress June 1, 2006.

Who is eligible? State and municipal governments in coastal and Great Lake States or

territories.

Amount of Assistance provided for FY 06 in MD, PA, VA, DC, DE, WV, NY CB

Watershed?

MD - $3,743,375 VA - $2,386,401 DE - $1,403,765

Amount of Assistance provided in past th ree years to CB watershed per state? MD - $11,900,217 VA - $6,887,270

2005 Federal Spending Inventory (Appendix C) : $12,502,087 included for MD and VA as indirect spending.

Cost Share Requirements: 1:1 match is required.

7879 Authority: 16 USC 1456d

Funding criteria/rating system: There is no funding criteria for pr ojects that are earmarks. To select projects for the FY2007 list, NOAA developed a scoring system that evaluated projects for their relevance to the goals of the CELCP, technical and scientific merit, qualifications of the applicants, and the budget.

Section III: Funding Distribut ion Question and Answer

How do the HQ offices (Washington DC) det ermine the distribution of funds among the Regional offices? NOAA does not employ regional offices in the disbursement of CECLP fund s.

How much discretion do regional offices/lead ag encies have in the distribution of funds to states, localities or watershed organizations? For earmarks, recipients and amount of funds are established by Congress. NOAA has some disc retion in the use of the funds, and may deny projects or seek modifications if the original project proposal is not consistent with the intent of the CELCP or its guidelines.

How are priorities set for the distribution of funds in regional/lead offices? Is there a formula for how it is distributed? Is there a priori ties list of objectives or projects targeted? NA. However, State coastal zone management programs are in the process of developing CELCP plans that establish priority objectives for acquisition in the co astal zone, which would serve to guide the selection of projects to nominate for national competition, should funds become available for such purpose.

Is their a guidance document that guide applicants that is provided? If so, how often is it published and who is responsible for distribution and content? The CELCP guidelines were published in the Federal Register in June 2003 and can be found at http://www.ocrm.nos.noaa.gov/landconservation.html . Recipients who are selected for earmarks also receive detailed application instructions from the lead office.

If not how do applicants get word of what is available and for what purpose? If competitive funds were made available, notice would be put in the Federal Register and also distributed by State Coastal Zone Management Programs.

How are selections made? See above.

Are there regional or geographic areas that are targeted? If not, why?

In general, coastal watersheds, nationally. Specif ic regions or areas within that are not targeted because NOAA does not have discretion in selecting projects for funding.

What was the distribution of funds last year (who got the money by sector)? States: 13,258,981 Locals 18,526,901 Nonprofits 4,679,217

Is it possible to determine watershed areas that were targeted? NA

What type of environmental results (outco mes) are included in award documents? NA80 Section IV: Interviews Specific to State Tributary Strategies

Are you familiar with the state Tributary Strate gies developed to target implementation of

nutrient and sediment reduction s for improved water quality? Yes

How can your program guidance/rules be improve d to better focus on tributary strategies? NA. However, States are encouraged to consid er existing land conservati on strategies developed by other programs when developing their CELCP plans.

How can states and local stakeholders improve ability to compete with others to increase the % of funds being awarded to tr ibutary strategy implementation? NA

Are there examples of using these funds to he lp access additional f unding (leveraging)? All CELCP grants involve leveraging due to the match requirement.U.S. Geological Survey

Chesapeake Bay Studies

Section I: Program Overview

Funding Program Name: Chesapeake Bay Studies

Agency: U.S. Geological Survey Chesapeake Bay Studies

Division:

Contact information: Further information can be obtained from: http://chesapeake.usgs.gov/

Scott Phillips, swphilli@usgs.gov

Established: 1996

Overview of program: The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the science agency for the Department of Interior (DOI), has the critical role of providing objective science to document and understand ecosystem change in the Chesapea ke Bay and its watershed. The USGS interacts with resource managers and policy makers to use the science to adapt approaches for implementation, and assess effectiveness of, ma nagement actions for ecosystem conservation, restoration and sustainability. The USGS is addressing four science themes:

• Impact of human activities on land use;

• Factors affecting water qua lity and quantity;

• Ability of habitat to support fish and bird populations; and

• Synthesis and forecasting to improve ecosystem assessment, conservation, and

restoration.

The USGS is addressing these themes through a combination of monitoring, modeling, research, and assessment, to provide science that can be used for more effective management actions to address the impact of human activities on the eco system. To provide tec hnical assistance to partners the USGS will: (a) prov ide an improved understanding of the ecosystem to better target implementation of current conservation and restorat ion strategies, (b) asse ss ecosystem change to help evaluate the effectiveness of management activities, (c) forecast th e potential impacts of increasing human population and climate variabilit y, and (d) synthesize the findings and provide implications to help policy makers and resour ce managers adapt improved approaches for the ecosystem conservation, restor ation, and sustainability.

Section II: Funding Availability

When is funding Available? The USGS has funding from 15 different progr ams to conduct its sc ience and through the “cooperative water program” USGS funding is ma tched by State and local funds for USGS to address topics of concern to the Bay Program partners. Some of the primary activities are funding to implement the CBP nontidal water-quali ty monitoring network and assessment of the

information for the effectiveness of the tributary strategies.

Who is eligible?

8182 Amount of Assistance provided for FY 06 in MD, PA, VA, DC, DE, WV, NY CB Watershed? (Federal spending inventory?) Any state or local government.

Amount of Assistance provided in past three years to CB watershed per state?

Cost Share Requirements: State and local governments much provide at least a 50 percent cost share.

Authority:

Funding criteria/rating system:

______________________________________________________________________

Section IV: Interviews Specific to State Tributary Strategies

Are you familiar with the state Tributary Strate gies developed to target implementation of

nutrient and sediment reducti ons for improved water quality?

Yes

How can your program guidance/rules be improve d to better focus on tributary strategies? The USGS has refocused its science goals to ha ve focus on science to better implement the tributary strategies.

How can states and local stakeholders improve ability to compete with others to increase the % of funds being awarded to tributary strategy implementation?

Are there examples of using these funds to he lp access additional funding (leveraging)? Leveraging funds to implement the CBP non-tidal water quality network to help assess waterquality improvements from the tributary strategies.U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Transportation Enhancements (TE's), Surface Transportation Program (STP)

Section I: Program Overview

Funding Program Name: Transportation Enhancements (TE's), Surface Transportation Program (STP) Agency: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

Division:

Contact information:

Christopher Douwes , Trails and Enhancements Program Manager

202 366-5013 christopher.douwes@fhwa.dot.gov

Rob Draper , Byways, BikePed, Trails, and Enhancements Team Leader

202 366-4649 rob.draper@fhwa.dot.gov

John Fegan , Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Manager

202 366-5007 j ohn.fegan@fhwa.dot.gov

Federal Highway Administration Office of Natural and Human Environment (HEPN-50)

400 Seventh St SW Rm 3240 Washington DC 20590

Fax: 202-366-3409

Maryland: Dan Johnson, Environment & Planning Team Leader

410-779-7154 Virginia: Kenneth Myers, Planning & Environmental Program Manager

804-775-3353 Pennsylvania: Karyn Vandervoort, Environmental Team Leader

717-221-2276

District of Columbia : Michael Hicks, 202-219-3513

Delaware : Robert Kleinburd, 302-734-2966

New York: Chris Woods, Envrionmental Pr ogram Coordinator, 518-431-4125x255

State contacts can be found at: http://www.enhancements.org/stateprofile.asp

Established: 1991

Description: Transportation Enhancements (TE) ac tivities offer communities funding opportunities to help expand transportation choices su ch as; safe bicycle and pedestrian facilities, scenic routes, beautification, and other investments that increase recreation opportunity and

8384 access. Communities may also use TE funds to cont ribute toward the revitalization of local and regional economies by restoring historic buildings, renovating streetscapes, or providing transportation museums and visitors centers.

More information can be found at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/te/overview.htm

Section II: Funding Availability

When is funding Available? Each state is different. For st ate specific information on funding, eligibility and contacts, see : http://www.enhancements.org/stateprofile.asp

Who is eligible? State Departments of Transportation. They distribute the money among local government or non-profits.

Amount of Assistance provided for FY06 in CB Watershed? (figures are not watershed specific but statewide)

MD- $12,304,109 PA -$ 27,996,402 VA - $ 21,785,382 DC -$ 3,168,963 DE - $ 3,478,182 WV -$ 5,873,149 NY -$ 28,923,049

Source: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/enviro nment/te/apportionments.htm

Amount of Assistance provided in past three years to CB watershed per state? (Statewide, not watershed specific)

2005 same as 2006 above

1998-2004

MD: $ 74,107,015

PA : $ 164,728,852

VA: $ 129,781,328 DC: $ 20,180,317 DE: $ 23,213,878

NY : $ 183,699,699

WV : $ 36,681,237

Cost Share Requirements: Most Federal-aid highway projects are funded with a maximum 80 percent Federal contribution and require a 20 percent State and lo cal match of Federal funds as set forth in 23 U.S.C. 120(b). However, this maximum share is adjusted for States with substantial Federal land holdings. For these States a sliding scale up to 95 percent Federal funding is determined according to the percen tage of Federal land holdings in the State. Language included in TEA-21 provides an impor tant exception regarding Federal share on TE projects. Section 1108(b)(2) of TEA -21 amended 23 U.S.C. 133(e)(5 ) to allow a State to use TE funds for up to 100 percent of the cost of individual project s without a corresponding match. However, for a fiscal year, the ratio of Federal funds to State match for all TE funded projects85 must comply with the maximum Federal share pr ovisions in 23 U.S.C. 120(b). This amendment also provides some add itional innovative features.

Authority: Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21); P.L.105-178.

Funding criteria/rating system: Only those projects that are listed in one of th e 12 categories below are eligible for transportation

enhancement funds. 1. Provision of facilities for pedestrians and bicy cles; 2. Provision of safety and educational activities for pedestrians and bicy clists; 3. Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites (including historic battlefi elds); 4. Scenic or historic highway programs (including the provision of tourist and welcome center f acilities); 5. Landscaping and other scenic beautification; 6. Historic preser vation.; 7. Rehabilitation and opera tion of historic transportation buildings, structures, or fac ilities (including historic rail road facilities and canals); 8. Preservation of abandoned railway corridors (inc luding the conversion and use of the corridors for pedestrian or bicycle trails ); 9. Inventory, control, and re moval of outdoor advertising; 10. Archaeological planning and research. Research , preservation planning, and interpretation of archaeological artifacts; curation for artifacts related to surf ace transportation and artifacts recovered from locations within or along surf ace transportation corri dors; 11. Environmental mitigation-- (i) to address water pollution due to highway runoff; or (ii) reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality while maintaining habitat connectivity; 12. Establishment of transportation museums.

______________________________________________________________________ Section III: Funding Distribut ion Question and Answer

How do the HQ offices (Washington DC) det ermine the distribution of funds among the Regional offices? The FHWA has a formula for the Surf ace Transportation funds that are annually distributed to the stat es. Of those funds, up to 10% is allowable for use under the Transportation Enhancement Program.

How much discretion do regional offices/lead ag encies have in the distribution of funds to states, localities or watershed organizations? Regional Office do not have discretion, however, individual stat es have authority to distribute among the 12 categories of funding. Of all the states, Maryland has b een most supportive in using fu nds to address category 11, to address environmental mitigation and highw ay runoff. Maryland’s State Highway Administration, who administers the program is highly supported by th e SHA Commissioner. This is the stated primary reas on why they have been most succe ssful with distributing funds to this category. MD SHA also examines the applica tions and determines if there is a place that the project would fit into their opera tions so that they can assist with matching funds. Matching funds are not always readily available at the local government level. These environmental mitigation projects are costly. The least ex pensive of these project started at $170,000.

How are priorities set for the distribution of funds in regional/lead offices? Is their a formula for how it is distributed? Is there a priori ties list of objectives or projects targeted? See categories above.

Is their a guidance document that guide applicants that is provided? If so, how often is it published and who is responsible for distribution and content?86 More information on guidance is available at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/envi ronment/te/overview.htm

If not how do applicants get word of what is available and for what purpose?

Each state distributes application availability to the local gove rnments that apply

.

How are selections made?

Each state adheres to the category eligibility that is outlined by the Federal Highway

administration. A technical review panel is used at the state level, and an executive review panel

makes final decisions.

Are their regional or geographic areas that are targeted? If not, why?

What was the distribution of funds last year (who got the money by sector)?

Is it possible to determine watershed areas that were targeted?

What type of environmental results (out comes) are included in award documents?Appendix A: Directive No. 04-2 Meeting the Nu trient and Sediment Reduction Goals –Next Steps

Appendix A

87Appendix A

88Appendix A

89Appendix B: The Resolution to Enhance Federal Cooperation and Coordination

Appendix B

90Appendix B

91Appendix B

9293 Appendix C: FY’05 Federal Spending Inventory



### Chesapeake Bay Program FY 2005 Federal Spending Inventory
August 8, 2006

The spending amounts listed in the table below are based upon data submitted to the Chesapeake Bay Program Office as a work prod uct of the Federal Agencies Committee. Agencies are sorted from highest to lowest ac cording to the amount of their direct spending toward all the various protection and restoration goals for living resources, vital habitat, water quality, sound land use and stewardship and community engagement outlined in the Chesapeake

2000 agreement.

Direct Spending 1 Indirect Spending 2 Total Spending

USDA FSA $35,000,000 $7,000,000 $42,000,000

USEPA 2 $30,692,400 $52,474,509 $83,166,909

USACE $24,283,000 $6,835,173 $31,118,173

NOAA $15,383,598 $33,092,840 $48,476,438

USDA NRCS $10,500,000 $75,888,141 $86,388,141

DoI FWS $6,626,600 $8,311,974 $14,938,574

DoI USGS $3,453,808 $710,787 $4,164,595

DoI NPS $3,022,727 0 $3,022,727

USDA FS $1,406,000 $6,728,000 $8,134,000
DoD Navy $543,932 $10,867,800 $11,411,732 DoD Army $263,563 $361,073 $624,636

DoD Air Force 0 $17,465,000 $17,465,000

USDA ARS 0 $5,392,000 $5,392,000

USCG 1

- - - NASA 0 $227,000 $227,000

GSA 0 0 0 Total Spending $131,175,628 $225,354,297 $356,529,925

1 No data provided as of 8/30/06.

2 Includes Clean Water Act State Revolving Fund loans for PS and NPS projects.

1 Direct spending is defined as funds spent exclusively on Bay restoration (e.g., increasing the oyster population or monitoring SAV acreage) or that would cease to exist in the absence of the restoration effort.

2 Indirect spending is defined as funds that are not spent exclusively on Bay restoration (e.g., activities that may be considered normal agen cy operations) and would continue to exist in the absence of the restoration effort.Appendix D: Chesapeake 2000 Keystone Commitments

94Appendix E: Federal Spendi ng on Keystone Commitment
Appendix E

95Appendix E

96Appendix E

97Appendix F: Chesapeake Executive Council: Fede ral Agencies Committee Tributary Strategy Backgrounder and Spending

Appendix F

98Appendix F

99Appendix F

100Appendix F

101