DRAFT (2/210/03)

March 2003

Request for Proposals

Consolidation of

WATERSHED PROTECTION AND

NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION CONTROL GRANTS

Includes:

Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program (Proposition 13 = $25 Million)

Coastal Nonpoint Source Control Program (Proposition 13 = $11.1 Million)

Nonpoint Source Implementation Program (Clean Water Act Section 319 = Up to $6 Million)

CALFED Drinking Water Quality Program (Proposition 13 = $12.7 Million and Proposition 50 = $ 18.5 Million)

Watershed Protection Program (Proposition 13 = $32.8 Million)

CALFED Watershed Program (Proposition 13 = $12.1 Million and Proposition 50 = Up to $15-20 Million)

State Water Resources Control BoardDivision of Financial Assistance

In Cooperation With

CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA AUTHORITYCALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

DRAFT (2/210/03)

CALIFORNIA RESOURCES AGENCYUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION IX

March 2003Request for Proposal

DRAFT (2/210/03)

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALTABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

I. Introduction……..…………………………………….…………………...……...1

II. Grant Program Priorities………….……………….……………..…….………..1

III. Your Proposal-How and What To Submit…………………………………....2-3A. Proposal Identification Number (PIN)B. Deadline For ProposalsC. Proposal FormatD. Proposal PackageE. Delivery Address

IV. Special Grant Program Requirements……………………………..……...….3-5A. Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Grant ProgramsB. Watershed Protection Grant ProgramsC. Project Monitoring and AssessmentD. Environmental JusticeE. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

V. Proposal Selection Process and Schedule…………………………………...…..6

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1-Application Form………………………………………………………......13

Attachment 2-Project Narrative………………………………………………….…….14-15

Attachment 3-Small Communities with Financial Hardship and Designation FormTable 1. Municipalities qualifying as small communities with a financial hardshipTable 2. Rural Counties with a Financial HardshipDesignation Form

Attachment 4-Summary Table of 2003 NPS Pollution Control and Watershed Protection Grant Programs…………………………………………………………….…………..……….8-9

Attachment 5-Regional Water Quality Control Board Map…………...…………………10

Attachment 6-Grant Program Contacts……………………………………..………...11-12

Attachment 7-Specific 319 NPS Implementation Program Criteria…………..……...26

Attachment 8-Specific CALFED Drinking Water Program Criteria……...…………24-25

Attachment 9-Specific CALFED Watershed Program Criteria…………….…..……22-23

Attachment 10- Cookbook for Contract Scope Preparation …………………………………….…………

DRAFT (2/210/03)

I. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this document is to announce the availability of funding from eight different grant programs administered by the State Water Resources Control Board under the auspices of Propositions 13 and 50, and the Clean Water Act section 319.. This will make approximately $120 million available for Watershed Protection and Nonpoint Source (NPS) Pollution Control Grants. The consolidation of these programs will simplify the grant application process, allow for significant coordination with our partner agencies, and balance statewide funding needs consistent with grant program priorities. We are also extending our coordination efforts to consider the goals and objectives of other state and federal environmental resource programs so the State is more effective and efficient in its delivery of local assistance..

This year, you will complete and submit a single Application Form in Attachment 1 and Project Narrative in Attachment 2 to be considered for any of the eight grant programs. The Small Community Designation Form in Attachment 3 must also be completed if you are applying for small community funding designated in the Proposition 13 Watershed Protection and Proposition 13 CALFED watershed programs.

You should also consult the Summary Table of Watershed Protection and NPS Pollution Control Grant Programs in Attachment 4. This table includes important information on eligible agencies, project eligibility, coordinating agencies, and funding distribution. The special grant program requirements discussed on page ? should also be considered when developing your proposal.

After reading these materials and while preparing your proposal you must contact your Regional Water Quality Control Board representative so they can assist in identifying the appropriate grant program(s) for your proposal and the program where it may best compete for grants. A map of Regional Water Quality Control Board boundaries is in Attachment 5 and Regional Water Quality Control Board contact information is in Attachment 6. If you need additional assistance, contact information for State Water Resources Control Board, Bay-Delta Authority, Coastal Commission, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency representatives is also available in Attachment 6. An electronic copy of this RFP is available at www.swrcb.ca.gov/funding/index.html.

II. GRANT PROGRAM PRIORITIES

A. STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD PRIORITIES State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Board water resource protection efforts are guided by our Watershed Management Initiative (WMI). WMI facilitates water quality solutions by looking at specific water quality problems within a watershed and identifying potential solutions. All Regional Water Quality Control Board’s have developed a Watershed Management Initiative ‘chapter’ which outlines priority watersheds, programs and/or projects for each region. Projects that specifically address development and implementation of TMDL’s and/or address impaired waterbodies identified on the 303(d) list are also high priorities for the State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Boards.

March 2003 1Request for Proposal

DRAFT (2/210/03)

B. CALFED PROGRAM PRIORITIESCALFED grant programs also implement watershed based solutions. These solutions are focused on those watersheds that contribute water to or receive water from the Bay Delta system.. The mission of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program is to develop and implement a long-term comprehensive plan that will restore ecological health and improve water management for beneficial uses of the Bay-Delta System.

The CALFED Drinking Water Quality Program has the following objectives: The primary objective of the program is to continuously improve source water quality so

that municipal water suppliers can deliver safe, reliable and affordable drinking water that meets and, where feasible, is better than applicable drinking water standards.

The program has specific targets for bromide and total organic carbon but also addresses salinity, microbial pathogens, turbidity, nutrients, taste, odor, and other constituents that negatively impact municipal water uses.

The CALFED Watershed Program has the following objectives: Facilitate and improve coordination and assistance among government agencies, other

organizations, and local watershed groups. Develop watershed monitoring and assessment protocols to be integrated into the overall

CALFED science and monitoring program. Support education and outreach. Integrate the Watershed Program with other CALFED Programs. Define the relationship between watershed processes and the CALFED Program goals and

objectives. Implement a strategy that will assure support and long-term sustainability of local

watershed activities.To pursue these priorities the program has established a set of initial implementation priorities. These implementation priorities will be pursued through this grant process. They are as follows: Building local community capacity to assess and effectively manage watersheds that affect

the bay delta system. Development or refinement of watershed assessments and plans Design, development and implementation of specific watershed conservation,

maintenance, and restoration actions.

C. OTHER STATEWIDE PROGRAM PRIORITIESThe California Environmental Protection Agency and the California Resources Agency are developing a watershed strategic plan focused on integrating statewide environmental resource programs. A significant priority for this plan is further enhancing coordinated implementation of State Water Resources Control Board grant programs with those of other State and federal agencies to achieve multiple program benefits. This and future RFP’s are tools the State Water Resources Control Board will use to achieve this goal. In your response to this RFP you are not required to specifically address multiple program benefits. We would, however, like to encourage your participation in State Water Resources Control Board workshops, Regional Water Quality

March 2003 2Request for Proposal

DRAFT (2/210/03)

Control Board workshops, and other statewide stakeholder group meetings to provide input on how or what other benefits may be achieved.

D. LINKS TO GRANT PROGRAM PRIORITIESProposed grant projects that address grant program priorities will receive more favorable consideration. The WMI chapters for each RWQCB and CALFED program priorities can be found on the web sites listed below.

Region 1: www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb1/Program_Information/grants.html Region 2: www.swrcb.ca.gov/~rwqcb2/prop13/grants.html Region 3: www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/WMI/WMI 2002, Final Document, Revised 1-22-02.pdf Region 4: www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb4/html/fundings.html Region 5: www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb5/available_documents/watershed/R5_WMI_chapter.html Region 6:Region 7: www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb7/wmi.html Region 8: www.swrcb.ca.gov/~rwqcb8/wmi/2002WMI-RB8-table2-1.pdfRegion 9: www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb9/programs/wmc/projects/wmchT15trgtproj103.PDF 303 (d) List: www.swrcb.ca.gov/tmdl/docs/2002_cwa_section_303d_list_wqls_020403.pdf Total Maximum Daily Loads: www.swrcb.ca.gov/nps/docs/cwarfp/ard_section4.doc CALFED Drinking Water Quality Program: www.calfed/Programs/DrinkingWater/DrinkingWater.shtml CALFED Watershed Program: www.baydeltawatershed.org

III. YOUR PROPOSAL - HOW AND WHAT TO SUBMIT

An outline of how and what to submit is provided below. Please follow these instructions carefully. Failure to meet requirements will result in applications being considered nonresponsive to the RFP and ineligible for funding. After reading these materials, if you have any questions or need further assistance, please contact your Regional Water Quality Control Board or other representative in the contact list. If you are unable to reach a contact, please call State Water Resources Control Board staff at 1-866-415-3561 so we can assist you. You may also send an e-mail to DFA_Grants@swrcb.ca.gov.

A. PROPOSAL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (PIN)Prior to submitting a proposal you must obtain an application number by calling1-866-415-3561 where a State Water Resources Control Board staff person will assign a PIN. Applications submitted without a PIN will be considered non-responsive to the Re-quest For Proposal (RFP) and returned to the sender.

B. DEADLINE FOR PROPOSALSAll proposals must be received by the State Water Resources Control Board no later than close of business (5:00 p.m.) May 2, 2003. Please note that unlike prior RFP's, postmarks will no longer be used to determine valid delivery dates. Proposals that arrive after 5:00 p.m. on May 2, 2003, will not be considered in this round of funding.

March 2003 3Request for Proposal

DRAFT (2/210/03)

C. PROPOSAL FORMATYour proposal will consist of two parts, the 4-page Application Form in Attachment 1, and the Project Narrative to be completed using the format in Attachment 2. The Project Nar-rative should contain no more than eight pages of text and two pages for maps, graphs, charts, diagrams, or other supporting documentation. The font size for text should be no smaller than 10 point. The text and supporting documentation should be printed on 8 ½” x 11” paper. The proposal submittal, including the 4-page application form should contain no more than 14 pages. It may include up to 16 pages where the Small Community with Financial Hardship form and map are required (Attachment 3). If page limits are ex-ceeded, the proposal will be considered non-responsive and ineligible for funding.

The Project Narrative provides the substance and circumstances of your proposal. Here you will summarize your project and how it relates to your watershed. There are six gen-eral project elements outlined in Attachment 2 that should be addressed in the body of the Project Narrative. Response to these questions is required for all grant programs. In addi-tion, for the CALFED Watershed, CALFED Drinking Water Quality, and 319 NPS Imple-mentation Programs, your Project Narrative should expand on concepts pertinent to the specific grant program described in Attachments 7, 8, and 9. The length of response to the six criteria should be adjusted to comply with the 8-page limit for text.

D. PROPOSAL PACKAGEYou must submit one original and two paper copies, and an electronic copy of your pro-posal package to the State Water Resources Control Board. All hard copies should be 3-hole punched. The package needs to include your project proposal and the completed forms in this RFP.

Electronic copies can be on either CD-R media or a 1.44 MB floppy disk. Electronic files in Microsoft (MS) Word 97 format are preferred; however, this is not a requirement. If you cannot comply with this request, call your Regional Water Quality Control Board rep-resentative for assistance prior to submitting an application.

Do not include support letters with the proposals. Instead, send any support letters sepa-rately to the delivery address shown in Part E. below: Support letters should include the complete proposal title and the PIN.

E. DELIVERY ADDRESSProposals must be sent or delivered to:

DFA - GRANTSDivision of Financial AssistanceState Water Resources Control Board1001 I Street, 16th FloorSacramento, California 95814

March 2003 4Request for Proposal

DRAFT (2/210/03)

All proposals will become public information once submitted. When you sign and submit a proposal for consideration, you waive any rights to privacy and the confidentiality of the proposal.

IV. SPECIAL GRANT PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

A. Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Grant Programs (Match Requirements)All “capital cost projects” to be funded through the NPS Pollution Control Grant Programs (Attachment 4) are required to provide a cost match to be eligible for grant funding.

A “capital cost project” typically involves construction and implementation. All costs ancillary to a “capitol cost project” are also considered a capital cost, and require a match. Where a proposal is for engineering feasibility and/or design of a project, it will also be considered a “capitol cost project” and a match is required.

Examples of other capital cost projects are those where there is purchase of land or any interest thereof, or a mechanical disturbance of the earth or a water body. This includes activities such as; purchase of easements or leases, stream bank erosion protection, revegetation, or watershed restoration. Scientific Studies may also be capital cost projects if significant equipment acquisition and/or installation is required. Typically, implementation of capital cost projects requires approvals and permits from local, state, and federal regulatory agencies.

The capital cost match will be required for the entire cost of the project and will be determined as shown below.

For a total project cost of $1,000,000 to $5,000,000, a .20 percent cost match is required.

For a total project cost of $250,000 to $999,999, inclusive, a 15 percent cost match is required.

The cost match amount is calculated based on the total project cost as shown in the following example:

$250,000 Total Project Cost x 0.15 Required Match Factor (15 percent) $37,500 Required Cost Match

B. Watershed Protection Grant Programs (Small Communities with a Financial Hardship) Approximately $15.8 million of the $44.9 million available for the Proposition 13 Water-shed Protection and CALFED Watershed Programs must be awarded to small communities with a financial hardship. The definition of a small community with a financial hardship is detailed in Attachment 3.

The small community with a financial hardship requirement for this funding in the e Watershed Protection and CALFED Watershed Programs presents a unique statewide

March 2003 5Request for Proposal

DRAFT (2/210/03)

challenge to find good eligible projects where they are needed. These communities typically do not have the resources to complete grant applications and it has been historically difficult to partner these communities with an eligible agency that can undertake a project on their behalf. In addition, this requirement also has the effect of limiting the applicant pool and enhancing the likelihood of project funding. The State Water Resources Control Board would like to encourage eligible agencies to explore possible partnership opportunities.

To be eligible for this funding you must complete the Small Community Designation Form in Attachment 3. This year we have developed a web-based tool, available at http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/funding/index.html, that provides for county- wide searches of census data to assist in identifying watersheds encompassing small communities with a financial hardship. If you need assistance using this tool, please call 1-866-415-3561.

C. Project Monitoring and Assessment In the Project Narrative (Attachment 2), one of the criteria you must address is how your project will result in measurable water quality or watershed improvements. This is an important criterion reflecting a priority goal for all of our grant programs. The goal is to demonstrate the success of projects, and regional and statewide benefits, if any. Project assessment also allows us to identify project types that have a high likelihood of success in achieving their intended goals while satisfying various statutory reporting requirements. To achieve these goals, Project Monitoring and Assessment will be required as part of the project.

The detailed plan for project monitoring and assessment is not required in the Project Narrative for this RFP. However, all proposals must identify specific methods for measuring and identifying project success. Project proponents can show the success of the project through water quality measurements (before and after), estimates of pollution load reductions, acres of wetlands restored, feet of stream channel stabilization, photo-documentation, number of volunteers trained, or other quantitative measures or indicators. The measures and indicators selected should be appropriate for the needs of a particular project.

In addition, some projects may involve collecting ambient water quality monitoring data. Those projects must follow the State Water Resources Control Board’s Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program’s (SWAMP’s) Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and data reporting requirements. Information on appropriate monitoring and assessment methodologies for SWAMP, QAPP, and data reporting requirements can be viewed on the internet at http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/swamp.

D. Environmental JusticeThe State Water Resources Control Board, Regional Water Quality Control Boards, Bay-Delta Authority, California Coastal Commission, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency conduct their programs, policies, and activities that substantially affect human health or the environment in a manner that ensures the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and income levels, including minority populations and low-income populations of

March 2003 6Request for Proposal

DRAFT (2/210/03)

the State. The grant programs will be administered in accordance with Public Resources Code section 71110 (d). This section of the code requires agencies such as the State Water Resources Control Board and its partners to improve research and data collection related to the health of and environment of people of all races, cultures, and income levels, including minority populations and low-income populations of the State. If your project is awarded funding you may be required to provide additional information during project implementation to assist in our assessment.

E. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) California law requires all projects to comply with CEQA (Public Resource Code §21000 et seq.). CEQA applies to “projects” proposed to be undertaken or requiring approval by the State and local government agencies.

State Water Resources Control Board’s selection of a project for a grant does not foreclose appropriate consideration of alternatives or mitigation measures that would reduce or eliminate adverse environmental effects of that project during the CEQA review process. Complete information on CEQA can be found at http://www.ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/ . Applicants for CALFED Bay-Delta Program funding should also refer to the “Guide to Regulatory Compliance for Implementing CALFED Actions”, which is available at http://calfed/CALFEDDocuments/GuideToRegulatoryCompliance.shtml .

March 2003 7Request for Proposal

DRAFT (2/210/03)

V. PROPOSAL SELECTION PROCESS AND SCHEDULE

Selection Process Schedule1. RFP document is released to the public. March 17, 2003

2. Applicant contacts State Water Resources Control Board to obtain a PIN. Applicant also contacts State Water Resources Control Board, Regional Water Quality Control Board, or where appropriate, other agency staff to determine eligibility and appropriate grant program for proposal submittal.

Mid- March through May 2, 2003

3. Deadline for submittal of Proposal Package. May 2, 2003

4. State Water Resources Control Board staff will log in, conduct preliminary eligibility screening, and distribute applications to appropriate Regional Water Quality Control Board’s and other agencies for review.

May 2, 2003 through May 9, 2003

5. Regional Water Quality Control Board and other agency staff will review all responsive proposals and evaluate them based on technical merit and specific grant program criteria. State Water Resources Control Board staff will notify in writing all applicants of ineligible projects.

May 9, 2003 throughMid July, 2003

6. Regional Water Quality Control Board staff , and where appropriate, other agency staff will then rank in priority order all projects and develop their region wide priority list for each grant program. Projects will be ranked by evaluating the level of responsiveness to each program criterion and by the number of criteria met. In the case of a multi-region proposal, a Regional Water Quality Control Board will be designated lead agency and will coordinate the ranking. Also, depending on technical merit of projects, not all funding may be committed.

Mid June, 2003 throughEarly July, 2003

7. Selection Committee’s consisting of staff from the affected regions and where appropriate, other agency staff are convened to integrate their region wide priority lists for each grant program into a combined grant program recommendation.

Early July, 2003 throughmid July, 2003

8. Recommendations for each grant program are forwarded to the Watershed Management Initiative Committee (WMI). The WMI Committee, consisting of a management representative from each Regional Water Quality Control Board and State Water Resources Control Board, will review program recommendations for consistency with management goals and objectives. The WMI committee will also consult with the California Bay-Delta Authority on selection of projects for the Watershed and Drinking Water Programs, EPA for the 319 program, and Resources Agency for all programs. The WMI Committee makes a statewide consolidated program funding recommendation to the State Water Resources Control Board.

Mid July, 2003 throughEarly August, 2003

9 State Water Resources Control Board considers the final consolidated program recommendation of the WMI Committee at a State Water Resources Control Board workshop and adopts a final consolidated priority list of grant program projects at a State Water Resources Control Board meeting. The State Water Resources Control Board approved priority lists may also be used for future funding cycles if there is a significant shortfall in meeting funding requests for high priority projects.

Early August through early September

Workshop = September 2, 2003

Board Meeting = September 17, 2003

10. Grant recipients will receive a notice of award and State Water Resources Control Board staff shall negotiate a contract with the recipient to implement the project. After notice of award, the negotiation and execution of a contract may take six to twelve months. The priority list is not a commitment to fund. Development of an adequate scope of work consistent with state contracting guidelines will be the responsibility of the applicant. Applicants will be required to provide detailed information and negotiate a final contract prior to a specified date. There is no commitment of funding until a contract is executed.

Notice of Award = Early October

March 2003 8Request for Proposal

DRAFT (2/210/03)

ATTACHMENT 1

APPLICATION FORM

Instructions: Attachment 1 is an Excel Spreadsheet accessed at

WWW.SWRCB.CA.GOV/FUNDING/?????.

This spreadsheet must be saved from this web site, completed, and submitted with your proposal. (May include more instructions)

March 2003 9Request for Proposal

DRAFT (2/210/03)

ATTACHMENT 2

PROJECT NARRATIVE (NOT TO EXCEED 8 PAGES)

The Project Narrative provides the substance and circumstances of your proposal. Here you will summarize your project and how it relates to your watershed. Your Project Narrative should in-clude a response to the six general criteria outlined below. Response to these criteria is required for all grant programs. Proposals for planning projects under the CALFED Watershed and Water-shed Protection Programs should also address these criteria to the extent feasible.

In addition, for funding consideration from the CALFED Watershed, CALFED Drinking Water Quality, and 319h NPS Implementation Programs, your Project Narrative should expand on con-cepts pertinent to the specific grant program included in Attachments 7, 8, or 9. The length of re-sponse to the six criteria should be adjusted to comply with the 8-page limit for text.

In the Project Narrative, describe how your project addresses the following:

1. The proposal targets a water quality problem identified in an existing watershed plan, or State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Board plan. Discuss whether the project addresses pollutants of concern for an impaired (303(d) listed) water body, implementation of Total Maximum Daily Loads, and/or NPS Management Measures.

2. The proposed project includes a technically or scientifically sound and effective means of preventing degradation of water quality and/or restoring water quality, and is capable of sustaining water quality benefits.

3. The proposed project results in measurable water quality or watershed improvements, and includes useful measures of effectiveness that can be used to evaluate success in achieving both project and overall watershed goals.

4. The proposed project enhances collaboration and coordination among multiple stakeholders and contributes to more effective watershed management.

5. The proposed project can be successfully completed within the proposed schedule, all matching funds will be available during the contract term, and the budget represents reasonable expenses.

6. The proposal presents an outline of the work tasks required to achieve your project goals. Each task should contain a minimum ofTasks may be described in two to three sentences. describing the task. Guidance on the appropriate level of detail and content can be found in Attachment 10, Cookbook for Contract Scope Preparation. The task outline should also be consistent with the budget outline in Attachment 1.

The following tips are intended to assist you with developing your concept proposal:

March 2003 10Request for Proposal

DRAFT (2/210/03)

Be concise. The most important aspect of your Project Narrative is the degree to which it adequately describes the basics of the project you intend to develop. Use lean language – superlatives take up space, and do not really add to a better understanding of your ideas.

Be direct. Your response to each of the criteria in the Project Narrative is intended to provide us with information we need to assess your idea and how it will be implemented. Address each of the criteria as directly as possible, with emphasis on the fundamentals of your idea rather than indirect details of its implementation. If you are unable to address any given criteria, explain why in the space provided.

Communicate with your Regional Water Quality Control Board and other Agency representatives. You must contact your Regional Board representative and other agency representatives for assistance in determining eligibility and the appropriate grant program for your application. They will also assist you in identifying how your project may better address both the grant program criteria and regional watershed priorities.

Use the information in the grant program summaries. The special requirements, objectives, and priorities of the program you are applying for should be considered when preparing and committing to your proposal.

Remember to clearly show the connection of your proposal to the purposes of the grant program of interest. As you develop your proposal, keep in mind that the more directly your project enhances the purposes of the State Water Resources Control Board Watershed/NPS Programs, 319 Grant Program, and/or CALFED programs, the more likely your proposed project is to be funded. Understanding why your project is useful and necessary to you and your community is valuable to us. Remember, however, that projects selected will be those that also best demonstrate environmental benefits and meet the objectives for which the funds are designated.

March 2003 11Request for Proposal

DRAFT (2/210/03)

ATTACHMENT 3

SMALL COMMUNITIES WITH FINANCIAL HARDSHIP

ForWatershed Protection Program (Proposition 13)CALFED Watershed Program (Proposition 13)

Approximately $15.8 million of the $44.9 million available for the Watershed Protection and CALFED Watershed Programs from Proposition 13 must be awarded to small communities with a financial hardship. The eligibility criteria is defined below. If you meet any of the three criteria outlined below, your project is eligible for the funding reserved for small communities. If you need any assistance with this eligibility determination please contact State Water Resources Control Board staff at 1-866-415-3561. You may also use our web-based tool, available at http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/funding/index.html, that provides for county- wide searches of census data, to assist in identifying watersheds encompassing small communities with a financial hardship.

"Small community" means:1) A municipality with a population of 10,000 persons or less, with a financial hardship as

determined by the board (See Table 1 below);2) A rural county, with a financial hardship as determined by the board (See Table 2 below); or3) A reasonably isolated and divisible segment of a larger municipality where the population of

the segment is 10,000 persons or less, with a financial hardship as determined by the State Water Resources Control Board. You may use the tool provided at http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/funding/index.html which provides for county- wide searches of census data to assist in identifying watersheds encompassing small communities with a financial hardship.

For the purpose of this RFP, “financial hardship” means that the median annual household income for the community is less than 80 percent of the California median annual household income. It is the policy of the State Water Resources Control Board that “median annual household income” means the median annual household income of the community based on the most recent census data or a local survey approved by the State Water Resources Control Board. If a community believes that the census data does not represent the community, and the community is not a Census Designated Place, a City or a Town, the community may apply to the State Water Resources Control Board for designation as a “small community with a financial hardship”. The application must include a map with sufficient geographic detail to define the boundaries of the small community, and the number of people in the community. If necessary to establish eligibility, State Water Resources Control Board may request additional information including a list of properties, the number of households, and income and/or property values of the community. If the application does not provide an adequate basis for the calculation of median household income, State Water Resources Control Board may require an independent income survey conducted in accordance with a pre-approved methodology. A subdivision of state government

March 2003 12Request for Proposal

DRAFT (2/210/03)

should not be considered a small community with hardship. The State Water Resources Control Board will maintain a current list of designated “small communities with a financial hardship”.

Any area that is a divisible segment of a larger municipality may work through the larger municipality to receive funding. The larger municipality may act on behalf of the divisible segment within its jurisdiction (with restrictive language in the grant contract stating that the money is to be used for the benefit of the small community).

March 2003 13Request for Proposal

DRAFT (2/210/03)

Table 1. Municipalities qualifying as small communities with a financial hardship. Based on 2000 Census Data and Household Income = 80 percent of the Statewide Median Household Income. (May not be an exhaustive list)Adelanto UC Almanor CDP Alpaugh CDP Alturas city Alturas UCAnderson city Angels City city Angels City UC Arbuckle CDP Armona CDPAuberry CDP August CDP Avalon city Avalon UC Banta (Deuel Vocational Institution) UCBayview CDP Beale AFB CDP BealeAFB UC Belden CDP Bertsch-Oceanview CDPBig Bear city CDP Big Bear Lake city Big Bend CDP Big Pine CDP Big River CDPBiggs city Biola CDP Bishop city Blairsden CDP Blue Lake cityBluewater CDP Bodfish CDP Bombay Beach CDP Bootjack CDP Borrego Springs CDPBret Harte CDP Buena Vista CDP Burney CDP Burney UC Buttonwillow CDPByron CDP Bystrom CDP Cabazon CDP Calimesa city Calipatria cityCalipatria North (State Prison) UC Calipatria UC Calistoga city Calistoga UC Calwa CDPCamp Pendleton North CDP Camp Pendleton South CDP Cantua Creek CDP Caribou CDP Carrick CDPCartago CDP Castroville CDP Centinela (State Prison) UC Challenge-Brownsville CDP Cherry Valley CDPChester CDP Chilcoot-Vinton CDP China Lake Acres CDP Chinese Camp CDP Chowchilla East (State Prison) UCChowchilla UC Chuckawalla Valley (State Prison) UC Clearlake Oaks CDP Clio CDP Colfax CityColumbia CDP Colusa city Colusa UC Concow CDP Corning CityCorning UC Cottonwood CDP Cottonwood UC Covelo CDP Crescent City cityCrescent City North CDP Crescent Mills CDP C-Road CDP Cutler CDP Cutten CDPDarwin CDP Del Rey CDP Delleker CDP Desert Shores CDP Desert View Highlands CDPDiamond Springs CDP Dixon Lane-Meadow Creek CDP Dorris city Dos Palos city Dos Palos UCDucor CDP Dunsmuir city Earlimart CDP Earlimart UC East Blythe CDPEast Coalinga (State Prison) UC East Compton CDP East Orosi CDP East Porterville CDP East Quincy CDPEast Shore CDP East Sonora CDP Easton CDP Edwards AFB CDP Edwards AFB UCEmpire CDP Etna city Exeter city Fall River Mills CDP Farmersville cityFarmington CDP Fellows CDP Ferndale city Firebaugh city Firebaugh UCFord City CDP Foresthill CDP Fort Bragg city Fort Bragg UC Fort Jones cityFortIrwin UC Fowler city French Camp CDP French Gulch CDP Friant CDPFurnace Creek CDP Garden Acres CDP Gazelle CDP Gerber-Las Flores CDP Goshen CDPGreenview CDP Greenville CDP Grenada CDP Gridley city Gridley UCGuadalupe city Guadalupe UC Guerneville CDP Guerneville UC Gustine cityGustine UC Hamilton City CDP Hayfork CDP Heber CDP Hickman CDPHighgrove CDP Holtville city Home Garden CDP Homeland CDP Homewood Canyon-Valley Wells CDPHornbrook CDP Humboldt Hill CDP Huron city Huron UC Idyllwild-Pine Cove CDPIndependence CDP Indian Falls CDP Inyokern CDP Iron Horse CDP Isleton cityIvanhoe CDP Ivanhoe UC Jackson city Jackson UC Jamestown CDPJohnsville CDP Joshua Tree CDP Keeler CDP Kelseyville CDP Kelseyville UCKennedy CDP Kerman city Kerman UC Kernville CDP Kettleman City CDPKeyes CDP Kings Beach CDP Klamath CDP La Porte CDP Lake Almanor Peninsula CDPLake Davis CDP Lake Isabella CDP Lake Isabella UC Lakehead-Lakeshore CDP Lakeland Village CDPLakeport city Lanare CDP Laton CDP Laytonville CDP Le Grand CDPLebec CDP Lemon Cove CDP Lemoore Station CDP Lemoore Station UC Lenwood CDPLewiston CDP Little Grass Valley CDP Littlerock CDP Live Oak city Live Oak (Sutter County) UCLondon CDP Lone Pine CDP Los Molinos CDP Lost Hills CDP Lower Lake CDPLoyalton city Lucerne CDP Lucerne UC Macdoel CDP Manton CDP

(UC)--urban cluster - A densely settled area that has a census population of 2,500 to 49,999 (Table 1 only shows CDP with population < 10,000). A UC generally consists of a geographic core of block groups or blocks that have a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile, and adjacent block groups and blocks with at least 500 people per square mile.(CDP) --census designated place - A geographic entity that serves as the statistical counterpart of an incorporated place for the purpose of presenting census data for an area with a concentration of population, housing, and commercial structures that is identifiable by name, but is not within an incorporated place.

DRAFT (2/210/03)Table 1 (cont.). Municipalities qualifying as small communities with a financial hardship. Based on 2000 Census Data and Household Income = 80 percent of the Statewide Median Household Income. (May not be an exhaustive list)March AFB CDP Maricopa city Mariposa CDP McArthur CDP McCloud CDPMcFarland city Meadow Valley CDP Mecca CDP Mecca UC Mendota cityMendota UC Mettler CDP Middletown CDP Mineral CDP Mojave CDPMokelumne Hill CDP Montague city Monte Rio CDP Montgomery Creek CDP Morongo Valley CDPMount Hebron CDP Mount Shasta city Mount Shasta UC Mountain Mesa CDP Mountain Ranch CDPMurrieta Hot Springs CDP Muscoy CDP Myrtletown CDP Nebo Center CDP Needles --AZ UCNeedles city Nevada City city Newman city Nice CDP Niland CDPNorth Lakeport CDP Oakhurst CDP Oakhurst UC Oceano CDP Ocotillo CDPOlancha CDP One Hundred Palms UC Onyx CDP Orange Cove city Orange Cove UCOrland city Orland UC Orosi CDP Pajaro CDP Palermo CDPPalo Verde CDP Parksdale CDP Parkwood CDP Pearsonville CDP Penn Valley CDPPixley CDP Pixley UC Placerville city Planada CDP Planada UCPlymouth city Point Arena city Poplar-Cotton Center CDP Portola city Portola UCQuail Valley CDP Quincy CDP Rail Road Flat CDP Raisin City CDP Rancho Tehama Reserve CDPRedway CDP Richgrove CDP Richgrove UC Rio Dell city RioDell UCRiverdale CDP Riverdale Park CDP Romoland CDP Round Mountain CDP Salton City CDPSalton Sea Beach CDP San Andreas CDP San Ardo CDP San Joaquin city San Joaquin UCSan Lucas CDP San Miguel CDP Sand City city Searles Valley CDP Sedco Hills CDPSeeley CDP Seven Trees CDP Shackelford CDP Shandon CDP Sharon (Women's Facility) UCShasta Lake city Shingletown CDP Sonora city South Dos Palos CDP South Oroville CDPSouth Taft CDP Southeast San Diego (Donovan

Correctional Facility) UCSpring Garden CDP Springville CDP Squaw Valley CDP

Storrie CDP Stratford CDP Strathmore CDP Susanville UC Taft cityTaft Heights CDP Taft Mosswood CDP Talmage CDP Taylorsville CDP Tecopa CDPTehachapi West (Correctional Institution) UC

Tehama city Tehama UC Temelec CDP Tennant CDP

Terra Bella CDP Terra Bella UC Thermal UC Thermalito CDP Thousand Palms CDPTipton CDP Tobin CDP Traver CDP Tulelake city Tuolumne City CDPTupman CDP Twain CDP Twentynine Palms Base CDP Twin Lakes CDP Upper Lake CDPVallecito CDP Vandenberg AFB CDP Wasco West (State Prison) UC Waterford city Waterford UCWeaverville CDP Weed city Weedpatch CDP Weed UC Weldon CDPWest Athens CDP West Compton CDP West Modesto CDP West Point CDP Westhaven-Moonstone CDPWestley CDP Westmorland city Westwood CDP Wheatland city Wilkerson CDPWilliams city Williams UC Willits city Willits UC Willow Creek CDPWillows city Willows UC Winchester CDP Winterhaven CDP Winton CDPWofford Heights CDP Woodlake city Woodlake UC Woodville CDP Yreka cityYreka UC

(UC)--urban cluster - A densely settled area that has a census population of 2,500 to 49,999 (Table 1 only shows CDP with population < 10,000). A UC generally consists of a geographic core of block groups or blocks that have a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile, and adjacent block groups and blocks with at least 500 people per square mile.(CDP) --census designated place - A geographic entity that serves as the statistical counterpart of an incorporated place for the purpose of presenting census data for an area with a concentration of population, housing, and commercial structures that is identifiable by name, but is not within an incorporated place.

DRAFT (2/210/03)

Table 2. Rural Counties with a Financial Hardship. Based on 2000 Census Data and Household Income = 80 percent of the Statewide Median Household Income. (May not be an exhaustive list) Butte County Colusa County Del Norte County Fresno CountyGlenn County Humboldt County Imperial County Inyo CountyKern County Kings County Lake County Lassen CountyMadera County Mariposa County Mendocino County Merced CountyModoc County Plumas County Shasta County Sierra CountySiskiyou County Sutter County Tehama County Trinity CountyTulare County Tuolumne County Yuba County

DRAFT (2/210/03)

WATERSHED PROTECTION GRANT PROGRAMSSMALL COMMUNITY DESIGNATION FORM

(This form must be submitted with the Attachment 1 Application Forms)

Check Only One Box

1. Applicant is a Municipality with a financial hardship. (See Table 1)No further analysis is necessary

2. Applicant is a Rural County with a Financial Hardship. (See Table 2 )No further analysis is necessary.

3. Applicant is an isolated and divisible segment of larger municipality or a municipality not identified in Table 1 or Table 2. See the tool at http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/funding/index.html for assistanceIf you are applying as an isolated and divisible segment, please complete A, B, and C.If you are applying as a divisible segment of a municipality, please complete B and C.

A. Description

Please describe segment and explain how it is isolated and divisible.

Include a map with sufficient geographical detail to identify boundaries of the isolated and divisible segment.

B. Population: (must be equal to or less than 10,000)

Please explain how it was derived.

C. Median Household Income (MHI):

(Divisible Segments area must have MHI equal to or less than $39,578, which is 80 percent of $47,493, the 2000 MHI for California.) The MHI must be calculated using 2000 Census Data or current MHI adjusted to 2000 dollars using the Consumer Price Index data. Describe the method that was used to calculate MHI for the project area.

Date of Data: Source of Data:

Census Data may be obtained from one of the following references:U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, http://www.census.gov/California Department of Finance, http://www.dof.ca.gov/California State Association of Counties, http://www.csac.counties.org

18

DRAFT (2/1421/03)ATTACHMENT 4

Summary Table of 2003 NPS Pollution Control and Watershed Protection Grant Programs

2003 NPS Pollution Control Grant Programs

Grant Program Eligible Applicants Project Eligibility Funding Available

Proposition 13 NPS Pollution Control Program (State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Board)

a. local public agencies b. nonprofit organizations with landowner members directly benefiting from project

1. Projects consistent with local watershed management plans and regional water quality control plans.

2. Broad-based NPS projects.3. Consistent with the State Water Resources Control Board/Regional

Water Quality Control Board "Integrated Plan for Implementation of the Watershed Management Initiative".

4. Implement management measures and practices pursuant to the State Water Resources Control Board/Regional Water Quality Control Board NPS control program.

Also see Special Grant Program Requirements for NPS on Page ?.

Approximate Total = $25,000,000Geographic split as follows:Projects in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, or Ventura County = $18,500,000Projects in 52 remaining counties = $6,500,000 Project Minimum = $250,000Project Maximum = $5,000,000

.Proposition 13 Coastal NPS Pollution Control Program (State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Board)

a. municipalities b. local public agencies c. educational institutions d. nonprofit organizationse. Indian tribes

1. Improve water quality at public beaches and to meet bacteriological standards.

2. Provide comprehensive capability for monitoring, collecting, and analyzing ambient water quality.

3. Make improvements to existing sewer collection systems and septic systems for restoration and protection of coastal water quality.

4. Implement storm water and runoff pollution reduction and prevention programs are consistent with the state's NPS control program.

Also see Special Grant Program Requirements for NPS on Page ?.

Approximate Total = $11,100,000 Geographic split as follows:Northern California (Regions 1, 2, 3) = $7,000,000Southern California (Regions 4, 8, and 9) = $4,100,000

Project Minimum = $250,000Project Maximum = $5,000,000

March 2003Request for Proposal

19

DRAFT (2/1421/03)2003 NPS Pollution Control Grant Programs (cont.)

Grant Program Eligible Applicants Project Eligibility Funding Available

a. municipalities b. local public agencies c. educational institutions d. nonprofit organizationse. Indian tribes

1. Implementation of measures and practices that reduce or prevent NPS pollution to ground and surface waters.

2. Projects consistent with TMDL’s, local watershed plans, and the California NPS Program Plan

3. Projects can include: Technology transfer. Demonstration projects. Technical assistance. Monitoring

Public education/outreach.

Also see Specific 319 NPS Implementation Program Criteria in Attachment 7 and Special Grant Program Requirements for NPS on Page ?.

Approximate Total = $5,000,000 to $6,000,000 Funding is available statewide

Project Minimum = $250,000Project Maximum = $500,000

Proposition 13 CalFed Drinking Water Quality Program (CALFED, State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Board)

a. local public agencies b. nonprofit organizations with landowner members directly benefiting from project

1. Projects consistent with local watershed management plans and regional water quality control plans.2. Broad-based NPS projects.3. Consistent with the State Water Resources Control Board/Regional

Water Quality Control Board "Integrated Plan for Implementation of the Watershed Management Initiative".

4. Implement management measures and practices pursuant to the State Water Resources Control Board/Regional Water Quality Control Board NPS control program.

Also see Specific CALFED Drinking Water Quality criteria in Attachment 8 and Special Grant Program Requirements for NPS on Page ?.

Approximate Total = $12,700,000 Project Minimum = $250,000Project Maximum = $5,000,000

Project must be in CALFED solution area.

Proposition 50 CALFED Drinking Water Quality Program (CALFED, State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Board)

a. municipalities b. local public agencies c. educational institutions d. nonprofit organizationse. Indian tribes

See Specific CALFED Drinking Water Quality Program Criteria in Attachment 8

Approximate Total = $18,500,000Project Minimum = $250,000Project Maximum = $5,000,000

March 2003Request for Proposal

20

DRAFT (2/1421/03)

2003 Watershed Protection Grant Programs

Grant Program Eligible Applicants Project Eligibility Funding Available Proposition 13 Watershed Protection Program(State Water Resources Control Board, Regional Water Quality Control Board)

a. municipalities b. local agencies c. nonprofit organizationsd. Indian tribes

1. Reduce chronic flooding or control water velocity and volume using nonstructural methods.

2. Protect and enhance greenbelts and riparian and wetlands habitats.3. Restore or improve habitat for aquatic or terrestrial species.4. Monitor the water quality conditions and assess the environmental

health of watersheds.5. Use Geographic Information System to display and manage the

environmental data describing the watershed.6. Prevent watershed soil erosion and sedimentation of surface waters.7. Support beneficial groundwater recharge capabilities.8. Reduce the discharge of pollutants from storm water or NPS.

Also see Special Grant Program Requirements for Watershed Protection on Page ?.

Approximate Total = $32,800,000Allocated as follows:

All Projects must be located in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, or Ventura County.

Portion of total for projects benefiting small communities with financial hardship (Attachment 3) = $7,900,000.

Project Minimum = $250,000Project Maximum = $5,000,000

Portion of Total for Planning Projects = $800,000Planning Project Minimum = $100,000Planning Project Maximum = $200,000

Proposition 13CalFed Watershed Program (CALFED, State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Board)

a. municipalities b. local agencies c. nonprofit organizationsd. Indian tribes

1. Reduce chronic flooding or control water velocity and volume using nonstructural methods.2. Protect and enhance greenbelts and riparian and wetlands habitats.3. Restore or improve habitat for aquatic or terrestrial species.4. Monitor the water quality conditions and assess the environmental

health of watersheds.5. Use Geographic Information System to display and manage the

environmental data describing the watershed.6. Prevent watershed soil erosion and sedimentation of surface waters.7. Support beneficial groundwater recharge capabilities.8. Reduce the discharge of pollutants from storm water or NPS.

See also program priorities (below), Specific CALFED Watershed Program criteria in Attachment 9, and Special Grant Program Requirements for Watershed Protection on Page ?.

Approximate Total = $12,100,000Allocated as follows:

Project must be in CALFED solution area , or if outside the solution area contribute directly toward achieving program objectives for the Bay Delta system.

Portion of total for projects benefiting small communities with financial hardship (Attachment 3) = $7,900,000.

Project Minimum = $250,000Project Maximum = $5,0000,000

Portion of Total for Planning Projects = $1,000,000Planning Project Minimum = $100,000 Planning Project Maximum = $200,000

March 2003Request for Proposal

21

DRAFT (2/1421/03)2003 Watershed Protection Grant Programs

Grant Program Eligible Applicants Project Eligibility Funding Available Proposition 50CalFed Watershed Program (CALFED, State Water Resources Control Board, and Regional Water Quality Control Board)

State Water Resources Control Board

a. municipalities b. local agencies c. educational institutionsd. nonprofit organizationse. Indian tribes

Funding will be used to pursue the following program priorities: 1. Building local community capacity to assess and effectively manage watersheds that affect the Bay Delta system.2. Development or refinement of watershed assessments and plans3. Design, development and implementation of specific watershed conservation, maintenance, and restoration actions

Also, see Specific CALFED Watershed Program Criteria inAttachment 9.

Approximate Total = Up to $15 to 20 million, depending on availability of suitable proposalsAllocated as follows:

Project must be in CALFED solution area, or if outside the solution area contribute directly toward achieving program objectives for the Bay Delta system..

No specific limit on funding allocated to planning projects

Project Minimum = $250,000Planning Project Minimum = $100,000 Project Maximum = $5,000,000

March 2003Request for Proposal

22

DRAFT (2/1421/03)

Attachment 5

Map of Regional Water Quality Control Board Boundaries

March 2003Request for Proposal

23

DRAFT (2/1421/03)

ATTACHMENT 6

GRANT PROGRAM contactsfor ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION, ASSISTANCE, or INFORMATION

Regional Water Quality Control Board Contacts

Janet BlakeNORTH COAST REGION (1)5550 Skylane Boulevard, Suite ASanta Rosa, CA 95403(707) 576-2805FAX: (707) 523-0135

Pam Buford (Tulare Lake Basin)CENTRAL VALLEY REGIONFRESNO OFFICE (5F)1685 “E” StreetFresno , CA 93706(559) 445-5576

FAX: (559) 445-5910

Carrie AustinSAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION (2)1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400Oakland, CA 94612(510) 622-1015FAX: (510) 622-2460

Cindy WiseLAHONTAN REGION (6SLT)2501 South Lake Tahoe Blvd.South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150(530) 542-5408FAX: (530) 544-2271

Alison Jones or Sorrel MarksCENTRAL COAST REGION (3)81 Higuera Street, Suite 200San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-5427(805) 542-4646 (Jones)(805) 549-3695 ( Marks)FAX: (805) 543-0397

Doug WylieCOLORADO RIVER BASIN REGION (7)73-720 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 100Palm Desert, CA 92260(760) 346-6585FAX: (760) 341-6820

Raymond Jay (NPS and Coastal NPS)Shirley Birosik (Watershed Protection Program)LOS ANGELES REGION (4)320 West 4th Street, Suite 200Los Angeles, CA 90013(213) 576-6689 (Jay)(213) 576-6679 (Birosik)FAX: (213) 576-6686

Mark AdelsonTalitha SweaneySANTA ANA REGION (8)3737 Main Street, Suite 500Riverside, CA 92501-3339(909) 782-3234 (Adelson)(909) 782-3219 (Sweaney)FAX: (909) 781-6288

Jeanne Chilcott (San Joaquin)Michelle McGraw (Sacramento River)Dan Little (Sacramento River)CENTRAL VALLEY REGION (5S)3443 Routier Road, Suite ASacramento, CA 95827-3098(916) 255-3088 (Chilcott)(916) 255-0744 (McGraw)(916) 255-6306 (Little)FAX: (916) 255-3015

Bob Morris Stacey Baczkowski Bruce PosthumusSAN DIEGO REGION (9)9174 Sky Park Court, Suite 100San Diego, CA 92123-4340(858) 467-2962 ( Morris)(858 ) 637-5594 (Baczowski)(858) 467-2964 (Posthumus)FAX: (858) 571-6972

Regional Water Quality Control Board Contacts (cont.)

Dennis Heiman (Upper Sacramento)CENTRAL VALLEY REGIONREDDING OFFICE (5R)

March 2003Request for Proposal

24

DRAFT (2/1421/03)

415 Knollcrest DriveRedding, CA 96002(530) 224-4851FAX: (530) 224-4857

California Coastal Commission Contacts (for Coastal NPS Program)

Region 1 – North CoastRegion 8 – Santa AnaRegion 9 – San DiegoAl WangerWater Quality Unit45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000San Francisco, CA 94105-2219(415) 597-5886FAX: (415) 904-5400

Region 2 – San Francisco BayRegion 4 – Los AngelesDerek LeeWater Quality Unit45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000San Francisco, CA 94105-2219(415) 904-5470FAX: (415) 904-5400

Region 3 – Central CoastRoss ClarkWater Quality Unit725 Front Street, Suite 300Santa Cruz, CA 95060-4508(813) 427-4873FAX: (813) 427-4877

STATEWIDEJack GreggWater Quality Unit45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000San Francisco, CA 94105-2219(415) 904-5246FAX (415) 904-5400

CALFED CONTACTS (Contact information may change due to move – See web site for update)John M. LowrieWatershed ProgramProgram ManagerCALFED Bay Delta Program901 P StreetSacramento, CA 95814(916) 651-7087FAX: (916) 651-9652

Sam Harader Drinking Water Quality Program

CALFED Bay Delta Program1416 Ninth Street, Room 1148Sacramento, CA 95814(916) 651-6170FAX: (916) 654-5699

319 Grant Program Contacts

Lauma Jurkevics319 Grant Program ManagerState Water Resources Control BoardDivision of Financial Assistance1001 I Street, 15th Floor Sacramento, CA 94244-2130(916) 341-5498FAX: (916) 341-5470

Sam ZieglerCalifornia Nonpoint Source Coordinator US EPA Region 975 Hawthorne Street (WTR-3)San Francisco, CA 94105(415) 972-3399 (415) 974-3537 (FAX)

March 2003Request for Proposal

25

DRAFT (2/1421/03)

State Water Resources Control Board Contacts

Bill Campbell Division of Financial Assistance1001 I Street, 15th Floor Sacramento, CA 94244-2130(916) 341-5499FAX: (916) 341-5470

Paul Marshall Division of Financial Assistance1001 I Street, 15th Floor Sacramento, CA 94244-2130(916) 323-4201FAX: (916) 341-5470

March 2003Request for Proposal

26

DRAFT (2/1421/03)

ATTACHMENT 7

319 NPS IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM

Program Criteria:

The proposed project implements water quality improvement activities for an impaired waterbody(ies) to help achieve the goals of an existing TMDL or a TMDL that is currently being developed. Information n existing or TMDL’s currently under development can be found at www.swrcb.ca.gov/nps/docs/cwarfp/ard_section4.doc.

The pollutant load reductions associated with the proposed project activities can be estimated and/or measured. An annual estimate of load reductions is required for all projects that entail the removal or reduction of nitrogen, phosphorus, and/or sediment.

The proposed project implements water quality improvements that are identified in a local watershed plan.

The proposed project results in the implementation of NPS Management Measure(s) described in the Plan for California’s NPS Pollution Control Program.

The proposed project enhances collaboration and coordination among multiple stakeholders/agencies/interest groups and contributes to more effective watershed management.

The proposed project includes activities that will contribute to ongoing NPS implementation within the watershed being addressed and will promote implementation throughout other areas in the region or State.

Ineligible activities include planning, studies, design, research, TMDL development, underground tank cleanup, activities undertaken pursuant to a NPDES permit (including stormwater), and the purchase of real estate and easements.

March 200327Request for Proposal

DRAFT (2/1421/03)

ATTACHMENT 8

CALFED DRINKING WATER QUALITY PROGRAM (Proposition 13 and 50)

Program Priorities

For this funding cycle, the CALFED Drinking Water Quality Program is particularly interested in projects that are designed to reduce loads of drinking water pollutants of concern from agricultural, managed wetlands, and urban sources.

Our top priorities are:

Development and implementation of management practices for:

Delta island discharges;

Irrigated agriculture and managed wetlands in the San Joaquin and Sacramento valleys; and

Urban sources.

Projects that develop and implement watershed programs adjacent to the California Aqueduct and other similar conveyances, including implementation of necessary physical improvements, pursuant to the CALFED Record of Decision.

Monitoring, assessment, and research projects that increase our understanding of the sources, transport, transformation, and fate of the CALFED drinking water quality pollutants of concern.

Project Selection Criteria

Projects will be evaluated according to the following criteria.

Relevance and Importance – The project will achieve the general program goal of reducing contaminants that impair Delta water quality. Source water improvement projects will result in measurable reductions in organic carbon, bromide, microbial pathogens, salinity, turbidity, taste, odor, or other drinking water pollutants of concern. The project will help to achieve the CALFED Drinking Water Quality Program specific targets of either: (a) average concentrations at Clifton Court Forebay and other south and central Delta drinking water intakes of 50 µg/L bromide and 3 mg/L total organic carbon; or (b) an equivalent level of public health protection using a cost-effective combination of alternative source waters, source control, and treatment technologies. The proposed project must demonstrate how it fits into the “equivalent level of public health protection” (or ELPH) conceptual framework of the Drinking Water Subcommittee of the California Bay-Delta Public Advisory Committee. The project should address multiple CALFED program objectives (such as ecosystem restoration, water use efficiency, watershed management, storage and conveyance, levee system integrity, and/or water transfers) in an integrated manner.

Scientific Merit - The project team understands the problem and relevant research. The March 200328Request for Proposal

DRAFT (2/1421/03)

proposal describes a conceptual model about how the system works. The conceptual model, references to previous analyses, and past data forms the basis of any proposed monitoring efforts. Monitoring proposals justify the time and spatial scales of proposed data collection efforts. The proposal explains the logic between the conceptual model, the hypotheses, the proposed work, and the information that will be developed (i.e. will the project answer the question that it has asked?). The proposal describes how the required peer reviews will be conducted. The proposed project utilizes science-based adaptive management.

Monitoring, Assessment, and Performance Measures – The monitoring component of the project is sufficient and complete. In particular, project performance measures are adequately described and appropriate.

Coordination, Communication, and Technology Transfer – The proposed project coordinates with/contributes to ongoing local watershed management. The project coordinates with appropriate local, State, and federal government entities. The project is consistent with existing local and regional efforts and plans. The proposal adequately addresses the eventual transfer of results to water quality professionals and the public.

Environmental Justice – (a) Involvement - The community, including low-income, minority, or other disadvantaged populations, are involved in the development of the project. The proposal includes a specific plan for identifying and including diverse community interests in implementation of the project. Citizen-based water quality monitoring, in compliance with State Water Resources Control Board-approved quality assurance plans, is encouraged. (b) Impacts – The proposal identifies benefits to the local community and shows how they will be measured. The project ensures that benefits are distributed equitably. The proposal explains the process for ensuring that environmental/health risks to disadvantaged communities are not increased, and are preferably decreased, as a result of the project.

Tribal Resources and Concerns – The proposal assesses the impact of the project on tribal trust resources and tribal government rights and concerns.

Project Team and Budget – The applicant and project team members are qualified to perform the proposed work. The budget is adequate as well as justified. The budget closely matches the approach, methods, and anticipated benefits. The proposal includes an implementation schedule with discrete tasks and a budget. The costs and schedule are reasonable and realistic. The project includes appropriate partnerships with related projects, investigators and stakeholder groups.

Costs and Benefits – The benefits (including employment, training and capacity building) and costs of the project compare favorably to other possible projects. The project is able to leverage CALFED funds by partnerships with other entities, funding sources, and/or in-kind services including existing sources of CALFED agency funds.

Durability/Long-term O&M – The project demonstrates the capability to sustain water quality benefits for at least 20 years. When necessary, the project includes a plan for sustainable long-term operation and maintenance funded independently of CALFED.

March 200329Request for Proposal

DRAFT (2/1421/03)

ATTACHMENT 9

CALFED WATERSHED PROGRAM(PROPOSITION 13 and 50)

Project Selection Criteria The directness and degree to which the proposed activity will address multiple CALFED objectives

in an integrated fashion, with emphasis on the water supply reliability, water quality, ecosystem quality, and levee stability objectives CALFED has established for the program.

The degree to which the proposal will help the CALFED Watershed Program define and illustrate relationships between watershed processes (including human elements), watershed management, and the primary goals and objectives of CALFED.

The technical feasibility of the proposed project.

Similarity of content and/or process to previously implemented successful projects in this community or elsewhere, whether or not the applicant participated in the other program(s).

The likelihood that any proposed new approach or new method would add new knowledge or techniques to the body of watershed management science, including the potential to fill identified gaps in existing knowledge.

For projects intended to develop specific watershed conservation, maintenance or restoration actions, the validity of the scientific basis for the action(s) described in the proposal.

Status of existing assessments of local watershed condition(s) already developed by the applicant or others.

The degree to which previous assessment(s) were used to establish project goals and objectives.

The accuracy of description and validity of the scientific assumptions used to develop the project goals, objectives and proposed actions, and the degree to which those assumptions are widely accepted (both in the science community as a whole, and in the specific watershed community).

If scientific uncertainties are investigated, how the project will address the uncertainties, and how it will contribute to informing dialogue about the issue.

Completeness of description of how the proposed actions are (are not) consistent with the scientific assumptions and previous assessments completed in the watershed, or why they may be necessary if they are contrary to or in conflict with those previous assessments.

The level of baseline knowledge used to support the management actions described in the proposal, or the likelihood that the management actions will generate more robust baseline knowledge than presently exists.

March 200330Request for Proposal

DRAFT (2/1421/03)

The completeness of the monitoring component of the project, and the degree to which it will help determine the effectiveness of project implementation. Also of interest will be the degree to which the monitoring proposal will inform and assist the project proponent and CALFED with adaptive management processes.

The degree of coordination and mutual support with other local and regional monitoring efforts.

Appropriateness and adequacy of any citizen monitoring programs that will be part of the project.

The usefulness of the type and manner of data collection, analysis and reporting for informing local decision making.

The degree to which the approach and methods described in the project carry an effective cost relative to anticipated benefits.

Adequacy of the methods used to determine project costs, including comparisons with other similar projects, salary comparisons, and other commonly listed costs.

Applicant qualifications and readiness to implement the proposal.

Level of ability and experience to conduct the project and administer funds.

Availability of appropriate technical support (including support needed for environmental compliance and permitting) necessary to begin and complete the project in a timely manner.

Experience with previously implemented projects of this type, funded either by CALFED* or other programs. For first time applicants, the criterion will be whether successful implementation can be reasonably expected based on the qualifications of the applying parties.

*For proponents who have previously received CALFED funding, the progress, requirements, restrictions and recommendations of the prior funding will be considered when assessing the project for funding by the Watershed Program.

Level of assurance that needed long term operation or maintenance of the project or program will be done, and to what degree it will be supported with funding from inside the community.

PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR THE COMPLETE SET OF PROPOSALSThose proposals that best address the evaluation criteria will be pooled for recommendation for final funding selection. The following criteria will be used in making the funding recommendations. These criteria apply to the entire set of proposals selected for funding, rather than to each proposal individually:

Does the set of proposals represent a balance of diverse watershed activities that demonstrate potential to improve the Bay Delta system?

Does the set of proposals represent a variety of watershed settings; (such as forested, agricultural, urban, mixed, snow based or rainfall based hydrology etc.)?

Does the set of proposals represent a diverse geographic distribution?

March 200331Request for Proposal