The Chesapeake B-WET (Bay Watershed Education and Training) grant program is a competitively based program that supports existing environmental education programs, fosters the growth of new programs, and encourages the development of partnerships among environmental education programs throughout the entire Chesapeake Bay watershed.

Projects support organizations that provide students with “meaningful” Chesapeake Bay or stream outdoor experiences and teachers with professional development opportunities in the area of environmental education related to the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

More details and the application process for FY 2009 are now available.

• The deadline for the current grant opportunity is October 3, 2008.
• NCBO is offering a handful of grant application workshops--both in person and via webinar--this summer to help you submit an effective application.

Funding is available for the fiscal year 2009 grant cycle for the B-WET Program. Approximately $3.5 million in competitive awards will be awarded in FY 2009 to fund meaningful watershed experiences for students and related professional development opportunities for teachers throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed (Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, D.C., New York, Delaware, and West Virginia). Typical grants range from $25,000 to $200,000 and are available to school systems, schools, teachers, nonprofit groups, and state and local governments.

Anticipated Timeline:  Availability of funding for this program is included in the June NOAA Omnibus notice published in the Federal Register. Pre-proposals are not required. Full proposals and a complete application package are typically due in October.

Eligibility:  Eligible applicants are K-12 public and independent schools and school systems, institutions of higher education, community-based and nonprofit organizations, state or local government agencies, interstate agencies, and Indian tribal governments in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Federal agencies or institutions are not eligible to receive federal assistance under this funding program.

Drivers:   Chesapeake Bay Program’s keystone commitment to provide every student in the watershed with a meaningful watershed educational experience (http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/doc-c2k_meaningful_bay_experience.pdf) before graduation from high school.

Current Priorities:  Proposals should address one of the four areas of interest:

1. Exemplary Programs Combining Teacher Professional Development with Long-Term Classroom-Integrated Meaningful Watershed Educational Experiences for their Students.
2. Meaningful Watershed Educational Experiences for Students Using the Chesapeake Bay Interpretive Buoy System (CBIBS).
3. Meaningful Watershed Educational Experiences for Students.
4. Professional Development for Teachers.

Previously Funded Projects

How We Make Decisions:

• Notice and Announcement:  A public notice of this funding program is included in the NOAA omnibus notice published in the Federal Register. More detailed information about the program can be found in the announcement of federal funding opportunity (FFO), which is posted on the NCBO web site and on www.grants.gov.
• Submitting Applications:  Applicants are strongly encouraged to submit application packages electronically through www.grants.gov. Applications may also be submitted by mail.
• Initial Screening:  The Federal Program Officer responsible for this program conducts an initial screening to determine compliance with all application requirements.
• Evaluating Proposals:  Proposals are evaluated based on importance and relevance and applicability of the proposed project to: 1) program goals; 2) technical/scientific merit; 3) overall qualifications of applicants; 4) project costs; and 5) outreach and education components. All proposals are evaluated and scored individually in accordance with the assigned weights of the above evaluation criteria and any additional criteria published in the FFO by an independent technical mail review. The technical mail reviewers are individuals with expertise in the subjects addressed by particular proposals, but who do not have a conflict of interests with the applicant. Each mail reviewer sees only certain individual proposals within their area of expertise. In addition to their review narrative, reviewers are required to comment on each of the five review criteria (listed above), to obtain an overall score for the proposal.

Upon completion of the mail review, the evaluation process moves to the review panel. The review panel is an ad hoc assembly of independent reviewers with a range expertise appropriate to the proposals to be considered. A panel is comprised of four to eight individuals, with individuals having expertise in either the scientific, management or implementation aspects of the program. Both nonfederal and federal scientists, managers and environmental education experts may be used as panel members. Like mail reviewers, panelists are asked to evaluate proposals individually, but they are asked to look at each proposal in comparison with similar proposals, and with all submitted proposals. The panel has access to all mail reviews of proposals, and uses the mail reviews in discussion and evaluation of the entire slate of proposals. All proposals are considered, and each individual panel member numerically ranks the proposals (1 through n). The individual panelist rankings are averaged for each application and this average ranking is the primary factor in final selection. No consensus advice is given by the independent technical mail review or the review panel.

• Selection:  The NCBO program officers neither vote nor score proposals as part of the peer review panel. The program officer (a) selects the proposals to be recommended for funding based upon the averaged panel rankings, and/or any specific objectives published in the FFO; and (b) determines the amount of funds available for each proposal subject to the availability of fiscal year funds. Most proposals are funded in order of descending mean score, except in a few cases where proposals are funded out of rank order because they meet program priorities more closely than proposals that had higher mean scores. Recommendations for funding are then forwarded to the selecting official, the Director of NCBO, for the final funding decision. The Director makes final funding decisions based upon the program officials’ recommendations, project funding priorities, and availability of funds.