State Approaches to Funding Local Projects A Survey of RFPs The State/EPA NPS Partnership New Orleans, November 27, 2001.

State Approaches to Funding Local Projects

A Survey of RFPs

The State/EPA NPS PartnershipNew Orleans, November 27, 2001

Van GoghMuseum of Fine Arts Boston

RenoirMuseum of Fine Arts Boston

A restoration grant project, before and after?

Goals of the Survey

Identify elements of a good RFP Provide links to states Highlight effective techniques

Elements of an RFP

Introductory material Eligibility criteria Proposal requirements Evaluation criteria

“cool stuff”

Introductory Material

Objectives: Rhode Island: reduce NPS pollutant loadings

entering water resources so that beneficial uses of the water resources are maintained or restored.

Alabama: WE NEED YOU! (focus on public involvement).

Hawaii: objectives include measurement of load reductions or public awareness

Michigan: encourages getting your feet wet, collecting data to develop good watershed plans

Eligibility Criteria

Legal Requirements: Link to NPS Management Plan No enforcement actions No NPDES

Eligibility Criteria (con’t)

Geographic Priorities: Florida: Only in priority watersheds listed in

NPS Plan Indiana: Only in 303(d), 305(b), Clean Lakes,

or UWA impaired watersheds Virginia: Targeted to 303(d) or NPS Assessment

Report South Carolina: Base funds must be spent in

TMDL watersheds

Eligiblity Criteria (con’t)

Programmatic Priorities: Pennsylvania

Organization of watershed groups Watershed assessments Watershed plan Watershed implementation

Maine BMP implementation Aquatic habitat restoration Watershed survey Watershed Management Plan

Proposal Requirements

Common Elements in State RFPs Applicant Information Scope of Work Financial Summary Water Quality Problem Partnerships Deliverables

Proposal Requirements (con’t)

Connecticut:

Good application form generally Budget section:

Requires budget by task Assigns match funds by task

Evaluation Criteria

Alaska: 60 out of 100 possible points are awarded for “Demonstrated

Project Need” and “Project Design”

Virginia: values cost-effectiveness, e.g. $/ft. of BMPs installed

Evaluation Criteria (con’t)

30 pts Watershed Priority

20 pts Potential Water Quality Benefit

15 pts Comprehensive Watershed Approach

10 pts Institutionalized Program

10 pts Project Coordination

10 pts Capacity of Applicant

5 pts Quality of Proposal

Evaluation Criteria (con’t)

New Mexico

Major Criterion: The degree to which a project will address the cause rather than the effect of a problem

Cool Stuff

What else is out there?

Cool Stuff (con’t)

Completed Project Reports on Web SitePROJECT CLOSE OUT

FY95 Section 319 Grant Program

Demonstration of Innovative Bridge Crossing

To Reduce Sedimentation From Unpaved Roads

EPA Grant Number: C9994515-95-0

Work Plan Project Number: Task 12

Project Period: February 3, 1997 - February 3, 1998

DEP Contract Number: WM659

Contractor: Jackson County Board of County Commissioners

The Centennial Clean Water Fund -- $15-20 M low-interest loans and grants for wastewater treatment facilities and fund-related activities to reduce nonpoint sources of water pollution. The State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) -- $53 M low-interest loans for wastewater treatment facilities and related activities, or to reduce nonpoint sources of water pollution. Section 319 -- $2 M

Combined RFP

Web-based Application Handbook Extensive Outreach, including

teleconferencing

Alabama

Electronic Application Form template

E-mail submittal

Rhode Island

Pre-Proposal Process Watershed location Pollutants addressed Purpose Outline Major outcomes Budget estimate

Rhode Island (and others)

Match Calculation:

Grant X 0.667 = Match

Pennsylvania

Legal Assistance Options Formation of watershed organizations Creation of by-laws

California

Requires 1 page summary to:

1. Network with watershed groups

2. Track implementation of BMPs

3. Determine effectiveness in protecting beneficial uses