Fill and Sign the E Child Early Childhood Education Curriculumwisconsin Form

PROPOSAL SOLICITATION PACKAGE FOR IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS, STEP 2 – 1ST FUNDING CYCLE FROM INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT GRANT PROGRAM AUTHORIZED UNDER PROPOSITION 50, CHAPTER 8 FINAL – MARCH 2006 Pages 6, 32, 34, and 40 updated May 2006 California Department of Water Resources Division of Planning and Local Assistance P.O. Box 942836 Sacramento, CA 94236-0001 California State Water Resources Control Board Division of Financial Assistance 1001 I Street, 16th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 March 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS TOPIC I. PAGE # INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................................................................5 II. APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS ...........................................................................................................................................5 III. CONDITIONS FOR EXECUTION OF GRANT AGREEMENT ......................................................................................10 IV REQUIREMENTS FOR ATTACHMENTS ..........................................................................................................................10 V VI. APPLICATION SCORING PROCESS......................................................................................................................................19 SCHEDULE ..............................................................................................................................................................................32 LIST OF EXHIBITS TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................................................................2 APPLICANT WORKSHOPS .................................................................................................................................................................4 FILL-ABLE TABLES .............................................................................................................................................................................4 POINTS OF CONTACT .........................................................................................................................................................................4 EXHIBIT A WORK PLAN...................................................................................................................................................................33 EXHIBIT B BUDGET...........................................................................................................................................................................35 EXHIBIT C ECONOMIC ANALYSIS – WATER SUPPLY AND WATER QUALITY BENEFITS..........................................38 EXHIBIT D OTHER EXPECTED BENEFITS..................................................................................................................................49 EXHIBIT E CALFED ROD CONSISTENCY....................................................................................................................................52 FORM 1 CALFED ROD CONSISTENCY .........................................................................................................................................52 IRWM Grant Program – Proposal Solicitation Package for Implementation Grants, Step 2 2 March 2006 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 – FAAST CHECKLIST .........................................................................................................................................................7 TABLE 2 – SUMMARY OF ATTACHMENTS AND CORRESPONDING EXHIBITS ...............................................................11 TABLE 3 – SCORING CRITERIA AND SCORING STANDARD .................................................................................................20 TABLE 4 - IRWM IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS, STEP 2 PROPOSAL SOLICITATION PROCESS AND SCHEDULE 32 TABLE B-1 – BUDGET (INSERT EITHER “SUMMARY BUDGET” OR INSERT THE NAME OF THE INDIVIDUAL PROJECT) ........................................................................................................................................................................35 TABLE C-1 - DISCOUNT FACTORS ................................................................................................................................................40 TABLE C-2 - UPDATE FACTORS .....................................................................................................................................................40 TABLE C-3 – ANNUAL COST OF PROPOSAL...............................................................................................................................42 TABLE C-4 - ANNUAL BENEFITS OF WATER SUPPLY AND WATER QUALITY BENEFITS (ALL BENEFITS SHOULD BE IN 2005 DOLLARS) .................................................................................................................................45 TABLE C–5 - ANNUAL COSTS OF AVOIDED PROJECTS (ALL AVOIDED COSTS SHOULD BE IN 2005 DOLLARS)..47 TABLE C-6 - ANNUAL BENEFITS OF OTHER WATER SUPPLY OR OTHER WATER QUALITY BENEFITS (IN 2005 DOLLARS) .......................................................................................................................................................................48 TABLE D- 1 – OTHER EXPECTED BENEFITS (ALL BENEFITS SHOULD BE IN 2005 DOLLARS) ...................................51 ACRONYMS USED IN THIS PROPOSAL SOLICITATION PACKAGE CEQA CWC DWR EIR FAAST GWMP IRWM MB MP NEPA PAEP PIN PSP QAPP ROD Regional Water Board State Water Board UWMP California Environmental Quality Act California Water Code California Department of Water Resources Environmental Impact Report Financial Assistance Application Submittal Tool Groundwater Management Plan Integrated Regional Water Management Megabyte Monitoring Plan National Environmental Policy Act Project Assessment & Evaluation Plan Proposal Identification Number Proposal Solicitation Package Quality Assurance Project Plan Record of Decision Regional Water Quality Control Board State Water Resources Control Board Urban Water Management Plan IRWM Grant Program – Proposal Solicitation Package for Implementation Grants, Step 2 3 March 2006 FOREWORD SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS, STEP 2 PROPOSAL This Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM), Implementation Grant Program Proposal Solicitation Package (PSP) is for the second step of a two-step application process. On March 10, 2006, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and the California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) invited selected Implementation Grant, Step 1 applicants to submit an Implementation Grant, Step 2 Proposal. Submittal of Proposals in this second step is by invitation only. Selected applicants were notified via email on March 10, 2006 of their invitation to submit a Step 2 Proposal (Call Back List). This PSP contains the procedures for submitting Step 2 applications for grant funding and the detailed scoring criteria that augment the IRWM Grant Program Guidelines (Guidelines), November 2004. Applicant Workshops DWR and the State Water Board will be hosting three applicant workshops. The dates, times, and locations of the workshops are listed in Section VI, Schedule. At the workshops, staff will provide specific and detailed information regarding the Implementation Grants, Step 2 application process and will afford potential applicants the opportunity to have individual technical assistance sessions to discuss their Proposal and to receive feedback on their Step 1 Proposal. The applicant workshops will be the best opportunity for prospective applicants to get detailed, individualized technical assistance from DWR and the State Water Board and to make contacts with staff that can provide ongoing assistance. Prospective applicants are strongly encouraged to attend a convenient workshop. To register for the applicant workshop and schedule a technical assistance session for a specific workshop, please contact: Mr. Joe Yun, DWR, at (916) 651-9222. Fill-able Tables Applicants are encouraged to use the fill-able excel spreadsheet versions of the various tables provided in this PSP which can be found at the following link: http://www.grantsloans.water.ca.gov/grants/integregio.cfm Points of Contact For questions about this PSP, please contact Mr. Joe Yun, DWR, at (916) 651-9222 (jyun@water.ca.gov) or Mr. Scott Couch, State Water Board, at (916) 341-5658 (scouch@waterboards.ca.gov). For questions about the State Water Board’s Financial Assistance Application Submittal Tool (FAAST), please contact FAAST staff by phone at (866) 434-1083, Monday through Friday, 8 a.m.–5 p.m., or by email at faast_admin@waterboards.ca.gov. For questions regarding the 2005 Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs), please contact: San Joaquin District, Mr. Luis G Avila, (559) 230-3364, lgavila@water.ca.gov; Southern District, Mr. Sergio Fierro, (818) 543-4652, sergiof@water.ca.gov; Central District, Ms. Kim E Rosmaier, (916) 227-7584, krosmaie@water.ca.gov; Northern District, Mr. Gene Pixley, (530) 529-7392, pixley@water.ca.gov; or Headquarters, Mr. David Todd, (916) 651-7027, dtodd@water.ca.gov. IRWM Grant Program – Proposal Solicitation Package for Implementation Grants, Step 2 4 March 2006 Prospective applicants for IRWM Implementation Grants, Step 2, should read this PSP and the entire IRWM Grant Program Guidelines. Specific attention should be paid to the Implementation Grants, Step 2 evaluation criteria (Guidelines Appendix C, Section C.3) to ensure that the submittal will meet the grant program requirements. I. INTRODUCTION Proposition 50, the Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002, was passed by California voters in November 2002. This voter approved bond act amended the California Water Code (CWC) to add, among other provisions, § 79560 et seq. authorizing the Legislature to appropriate $500 million for IRWM projects. The intent of the IRWM Grant Program is to encourage integrated regional strategies for management of water resources and to provide funding, through competitive grants, for projects that protect communities from drought, protect and improve water quality, and improve local water security by reducing dependence on imported water. The IRWM Grant Program is administered jointly by DWR and the State Water Board. The Guidelines establish the process used to solicit applications, evaluate Proposals, and award grants under this Grant Program. The Guidelines are posted on both the DWR and the State Water Board websites at: http://www.grantsloans.water.ca.gov/grants/integregio.cfm http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/funding/irwmgp/index.html Approximately $150 million is available for implementation grants during the first of two funding cycles. Each grant in this funding cycle is limited to a maximum of $25 million. This PSP is specifically for IRWM Implementation Grant, Step 2 applications. In Step 2, the Implementation Grant application must, at a minimum: Have received an invitation from DWR and the State Water Board to submit a Step 2 Proposal; Be submitted by eligible grant recipients (i.e., a public agency or nonprofit organization; see Guidelines, Section III.A); and Include projects from one or more of the water management elements listed in the CWC § 79561 (Guidelines, Section III.C). DWR and the State Water Board staff will evaluate the IRWM Implementation Grant, Step 2 applications in accordance with the Guidelines and this PSP. This PSP requires applicants to provide specific information regarding their IRWM Plan and the projects in their proposal. Use of the word “proposal” in this PSP refers to the suite of projects presented in the application for grant funding. The purpose of the evaluation criteria is to evaluate each application against competing applications. While project-specific information is required in the application, specific projects will not be viewed individually in regards to funding. Applicants compete and are awarded funding on a proposal basis. However, DWR and the State Water Board reserve the right to refuse funding for specific projects that are not technically sound or ineligible for funding. II. APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS This section provides instructions for preparing and submitting an application. It is important that applicants follow the instructions to ensure that their application will address all of the required elements. Applicants are reminded that, once the application has been submitted to DWR and the State Water Board, any privacy rights as well as other confidentiality protections afforded by law with respect to the application package will be waived. IRWM Grant Program – Proposal Solicitation Package for Implementation Grants, Step 2 5 March 2006 Applicants must submit a complete application online using the FAAST. The on-line FAAST application for the Implementation Grant Program, Step 2 will be available no later than March 17, 2006 at the following secure link: https://faast.waterboards.ca.gov. Applicants are encouraged to review the FAAST User Manual and Frequently Asked Questions, also available at the above link for questions about completing the online application. A complete application must be submitted no later than 5:00 p.m. on June 28, 2006. A complete application consists of all the following items: 1. Electronic submittal of an application through the State Water Board’s FAAST system (any attachment exceeding 10 megabytes (MB) in size cannot be uploaded to FAAST, see instructions below). 2. Three (3) hard copies (preferably double-sided) of Attachments 1-17 (as applicable) submitted to the State Water Board. 3. Three (3) hard copies (no electronic submittal) of most recent plans (half-scaled 11 x 17 tabloid) and specifications for each project. 4. A CD containing copies of the referenced material listed in Attachment 8, Scientific and Technical Merit. All CDs and the cover page of any hard copy documents must be clearly labeled with the applicant name, proposal title, grant program name, and Proposal Identification Number (PIN) (assigned in FAAST). All portions of the application, FAAST submittal, CD, and hard copies must be received by the due date and hour. Late submittals will not be reviewed. Portions of the Step 2 application will be submitted using FAAST. Only proposals from applicants that have received an invitation from DWR and the State Water Board to submit a Step 2 proposal will be accepted for review. For Step 2, the applicant enters information, answers questions, and adds attachments similar to the procedure using FAAST for Step 1. However, a new PIN will be assigned. When the applicant logs into FAAST using their existing user name and password, their Step 1 proposal will be available as read-only. If needed, responses to questions may be copied from the Step 1 proposal and pasted into a word processor, modified if necessary, then pasted into the Step 2 proposal. Similarly, attachments from a Step 1 proposal may be downloaded onto the applicant’s computer, revised if needed, and resubmitted for the Step 2 proposal. FAAST has a new search tool available to the public to view all proposals, including the attachments. The search tool is located at: https://faast.waterboards.ca.gov/publicproposalssearch.asp. Those applicants working on a combined proposal may wish to create a new FAAST account that can be shared among the group and used to submit the Step 2 application. It is recommended to only open one proposal at a time. If an applicant has more than one FAAST account, it is also recommended to log into FAAST using one account at a time, and close the browser after logging out. If these recommendations are not followed it is possible that information might not be saved correctly. File size for each attachment submitted via FAAST is limited to 10 MB. Acceptable file formats are: MS Word, MS Excel, MS Project, or PDF. PDF files should be generated, if possible, from the original application file rather than scanned hard copy. Any application attachments larger than 10 MB must be delivered to the State Water Board on a CD and received before the deadline. The address for mailing or hand delivery of hard copy and CD application components is: Mr. Scott Couch State Water Resources Control Board Division of Financial Assistance 1001 I Street, 16th floor Sacramento, CA 95814 The grant application in FAAST consists of eight sections outlined in Table 1 – FAAST Checklist, which is provided as a guide for applicants to ensure that they have submitted the required information. IRWM Grant Program – Proposal Solicitation Package for Implementation Grants, Step 2 6 March 2006 Table 1 – FAAST Checklist 1. GENERAL INFORMATION The following fields must be completed: Project Title – Provide the title of the Proposal. If this item is not completed, FAAST will not accept the application. Project Description – Provide the PIN(s) for the Step 1 Proposal. Provide a brief abstract of the Proposal, such as a listing of individual project titles or types. The length of the Project Description is limited to 1,000 characters including spaces and returns. If this item is not completed, FAAST will not accept the application. Grant Funds Requested – Provide the amount of grant funds requested, in dollars, for the Proposal. Local Cost Match – “Local Cost Match” is the same as “Funding Match” in the Guidelines. Provide the Funding Match for the Proposal in dollars. A minimum Funding Match of 10% of the total cost of the Proposal is required for IRWM Implementation Grant unless a waiver or reduction of the funding match was requested in Step 1. Total Budget –Provide the total cost, in dollars, for the Proposal. This amount must agree with the total Proposal cost shown in Attachment 6. Latitude/Longitude – Enter the latitude/longitude coordinates of the approximate midpoint of the region in degrees using decimal format. Watershed – Provide the name of watershed the region covers. If the region covers multiple watersheds, list the primary watershed only. Do not enter “multiple”; see Item 7, Q2 below. County – Provide the county in which the region is located. If the region covers multiple counties, select “Multiple Counties” from the drop down list. See Item 7, Q1 below. Responsible Regional Water Board – Provide the name of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) in which the region is located. If the region extends beyond one Regional Water Board boundary, select “Statewide” from the drop down list. If this item is not completed, FAAST will not accept the application. 2. FUNDING PROGRAMS Select the IRWM Implementation Grants, Step 2 Program. If this item is not completed, FAAST will not accept the application. PROJECT MANAGEMENT 3. 4. Enter the applicant’s Federal Tax ID. Provide the name and contact information of the Project Manager from the applicant agency or organization that will be the day-to-day contact on this application. Provide the name and the contact information of the Project Director from the applicant agency or organization that will be the Authorized Representative from the applicant organization to submit the application and execute a funding agreement. LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION Enter the State assembly, State senate, and U.S. congressional districts in which the region is located (use district numbers only, not the name of the Legislator). For regions that include more than one district, please enter each district. Look at tables provided in FAAST to assist with determining the appropriate districts. AGENCY CONTACTS 5. 6. If the applicant has been collaborating with State and federal agencies (DWR, Regional Water Board, State Water Board, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, etc.) in Proposal development, enter the agency name, agency contact first and last name, phone, and email address. This information is used to identify individuals who may have an understanding of a Proposal and in no way indicates an advantage or disadvantage in the ranking process. COOPERATING ENTITIES Include the entities that have/will assist the applicant in Proposal development or implementation. Provide name(s) of cooperating entity(ies), role/contribution to Proposal, first and last name of entity contact, phone number, and email address. IRWM Grant Program – Proposal Solicitation Package for Implementation Grants, Step 2 7 March 2006 Table 1 – FAAST Checklist 7. APPLICATION QUESTIONNAIRE The answers to these questions will be used in processing the application and determining eligibility and completeness. Q1. Additional Information: For a region that encompasses multiple counties, list the name of each county. Q2. Additional Information: For a region that encompasses multiple watersheds, list the names of the watersheds other than the primary watershed. Q3. Additional Information: For a region that extends beyond more than one Regional Water Board boundary, list the name of each Regional Water Board. Q4. Step 1 Information: Enter the IRWM Implementation Grants, Step 1 FAAST PIN associated with this Proposal. Has the title of the Proposal changed from Step 1? Yes or No. If the answer is yes, please enter the Step 1 Proposal Title. If multiple proposals are being combined into one Step 2 proposal, provide all of the PINs and Step 1 Proposal Titles. Q5. IRWM Plan Adoption Date: Does the agency or organization have an adopted IRWM Plan or functional equivalent? Yes or No. If the answer is yes, please enter the IRWM Plan adoption date. If the answer is no, please enter the anticipated IRWM Plan adoption date. Q6. Eligibility: List the regional agency or regional water management group members that qualify as urban water suppliers and will receive funding from the proposed grant (Guidelines, Section III). If there are none, so indicate. Q7. Objectives: Briefly describe how the proposal helps achieve the objectives of the IRWM Plan. Q8. Changes from Step 1 to Step 2: Has the IRWM Plan or Proposal been altered since submitting the Step 1 grant application? Yes or No. If yes, the applicant must complete Attachment 14 – Changes from Step 1 to Step 2. Q9. Modification of River or Stream Channel: Does the Proposal include a project that will modify a river or stream channel? Yes or No. If yes, the applicant must complete Attachment 15 – Modification of River or Stream Channel. Q10. CALFED Record of Decision (ROD) Consistency: Does the Proposal assist in meeting one or more of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program goals? Yes or No. If yes, the applicant must complete Attachment 16 – CALFED ROD Consistency. Q11. Letters of Support or Opposition: Are there any letters of support or opposition for the Proposal or individual projects contained within the Proposal? Yes or No. If yes, the applicant must complete Attachment 17 – Letters of Support or Opposition. Q12. Additional Information: Is the applicant or cooperating entity in default for any water rights permit requirements, including fee payment. Yes or No. If yes, please explain. Q13. Additional Information: Does the Proposal contain projects that have potential implications with respect to conflict between water users, water rights disputes, and/or interregional water rights issues? Yes or No. If yes, please explain. IRWM Grant Program – Proposal Solicitation Package for Implementation Grants, Step 2 8 March 2006 Table 1 – FAAST Checklist 8. APPLICATION ATTACHMENTS Provide the attachments listed below by attaching files to the FAAST application or providing a CD as required. For instructions on attaching files, please refer to the FAAST User Manual. The naming convention for these attachments, and the requirements for information to be included in these attachments, is found in PSP Section IV. Attachment # Attachment Title Attachment 1 Authorization and Eligibility Requirements Attachment 2 Consistency with Minimum IRWM Plan Standards Attachment 3 Adopted IRWM Plan and Proof of Formal Adoption Attachment 4 Consistency with IRWM Plan Standards Attachment 5 Work Plan Attachment 6 Budget Attachment 7 Schedule Attachment 8 Scientific and Technical Merit Attachment 9 Monitoring, Assessment, and Performance Measures Attachment 10 Economic Analysis – Water Supply and Water Quality Benefits Attachment 11 Other Expected Benefits Attachment 12 Program Preferences Attachment 13 Statewide Priorities Attachment 14 Changes from Step 1 to Step 2 (If Applicable) Attachment 15 Modification of River or Stream Channel (If Applicable) Attachment 16 CALFED ROD Consistency (If Applicable) Attachment 17 Letters of Support or Opposition (If Applicable) FAAST allows an applicant to save an application in progress online and submit the application when the applicant has gathered and entered all requested information. Applicants are strongly encouraged to review their complete application prior to executing the submit function in FAAST. Once an application has been submitted, no further modifications, additions, or deletions will be allowed. After the application is submitted, an automated confirmation email will be sent to the applicant confirming the date and time of submission. Applicants are strongly encouraged to avoid last minute submittals to allow time for FAAST staff assistance should any submittal problems occur. To print out a blank copy of the entire application: 1. Initiate a new application and fill out the following three fields on the first page: “Project Title”, “Project Description”, and “Responsible Regional Water Board.” Applicants can come back to edit these fields later. 2. Click on the “Save and Continue” button to initiate the application process. IRWM Grant Program – Proposal Solicitation Package for Implementation Grants, Step 2 9 March 2006 3. Click on the “Preview/Submit Application” button and select the “Print” option from the browser “File” menu. Non-Profit Organizations: If the applicant is a nonprofit organization, the applicant must use the organization name that is registered with the California Secretary of State: http://kepler.ss.ca.gov/list.html. If a different name was initially used, please see FAAST User Manual, Section V.A. (https://faast.waterboards.ca.gov) for instructions on changing the name. Within FAAST, pull-down menus, text boxes, or multiple-choice selections will be used to receive answers to the questions. FAAST will allow applicants to type text or cut and paste information from other documents directly into a FAAST submittal screen. When uploading an attachment in FAAST, the following attachment title naming convention must be used: Att#_IG2_PIN_AttachmentName_#ofTotal# Where: “Att#” is the attachment number; “IG2” for Implementation Grants, Step 2; “PIN” is the applicant’s 4-digit Step 2 PIN assigned by FAAST; “AttachmentName” is the name of the attachment as specified in Section IV – Requirements for Attachments; and “#ofTotal#” identifies the number of files that make up an attachment, where “#” is the number of a file and “Total#” is the total number of files submitted in the attachment. For example, if Attachment 5 – Work Plan for applicant with PIN “1234” is made up of 3 files, the second file in the set would be named “Att5_IG2_1234_WorkPlan_2of3”. FAAST tracks attachments by an attachment title, not by file name. The file name field in FAAST requires a computer path to the file location on the applicant’s computer. While not required, applicants should name their individual files on their computer the same as the attachment title to simplify personal file management. Do not use special characters such as dashes, asterisks, symbols, spaces, percentage signs, etc when naming individual files. Underscores are acceptable, as shown above. If an applicant needs help on FAAST, see the Foreword of this PSP for the appropriate contact information. III. CONDITIONS FOR EXECUTION OF GRANT AGREEMENT In the event that an applicant is selected for grant funding, the following conditions will need to be met prior to execution of a grant agreement: Fiscal Statements: The Grantee must submit copies of the most recent three years of audited financial statements, for each agency or organization proposed to receive grant funding for a selected Proposal. The submittal must also include: 1) balance sheets, statements of sources of income and uses of funds, a summary description of existing debts including bonds, and the most recent annual budget; 2) separate details for the water enterprise fund, if applicable to an agency or organization; 3) a list of all cash reserves, restricted and unrestricted, and any planned uses of those reserves; and 4) any loans required for project funding and a description of the repayment method of any such loans. CEQA/NEPA: Grantee must demonstrate that it has complied with all applicable requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by submitting copies of the appropriate environmental documents. IV REQUIREMENTS FOR ATTACHMENTS Attachments 1 through 13 are required attachments for all IRWM Implementation Grants, Step 2 Proposals. Lack of any Attachments 1 through 13 will make the application incomplete, and it will not be reviewed or considered for funding IRWM Grant Program – Proposal Solicitation Package for Implementation Grants, Step 2 10 March 2006 (Guidelines, Section V.E). In addition, applicants may need to submit one or more of Attachments 14 through 17. If the applicable additional attachment(s) is/are not provided, the application will be deemed incomplete and will not be reviewed or considered for funding. The Guidelines (Guidelines, Appendix C, Sections C.3 and C.4) and this PSP must be followed in developing the attachments. A discussion of each of these attachments is provided below and the Attachments and associated Exhibits are summarized in Table 2 – Summary of Attachments and Corresponding Exhibits. Table 2 – Summary of Attachments and Corresponding Exhibits Attachment1 Exhibit2 Comment Attachment 1 – Authorization and Eligibility Requirements Eligibility Attachment 2 – Consistency with Minimum IRWM Plan Standards Eligibility Attachment 3 – Adopted IRWM Plan and Proof of Formal Adoption Scored Attachment 4 – Consistency with IRWM Plan Standards Scored Attachment 5 – Work Plan A Scored Attachment 6 – Budget B Scored Attachment 7 – Schedule Scored Attachment 8 – Scientific and Technical Merit Scored Attachment 9 – Monitoring, Assessment, and Performance Measures Scored Attachment 10 – Economic Analysis – Water Supply and Water Quality Benefits C Scored Attachment 11 – Other Expected Benefits D Scored Attachment 12 – Program Preferences Scored Attachment 13 – Statewide Priorities Scored Attachment 14 – Changes from Step 1 to Step 2 If Applicable Attachment 15 – Modification of River or Stream Channel If Applicable Attachment 16 – CALFED ROD Consistency Attachment 17 – Letters of Support or Opposition 1) 2) E If Applicable If Applicable The attachment discussion below provides the applicant with general directions regarding the content of each attachment. The exhibit discussion provides specific direction regarding what information is to be submitted in the associated attachment. Attachment 1 Authorization and Eligibility Requirements For the “AttachmentName”, following the naming convention shown in Section II of this PSP, use “Eligible” for this attachment. Attachment 1 is mandatory and consists of authorization and eligibility documentation including the Urban Water Management Planning Act Compliance and Groundwater Management Plan Compliance. In Attachment 1 please provide: Authorizing Documentation: The grantee must provide a resolution adopted by the grantee’s governing body designating an authorized representative to submit the application and execute an agreement with the State of California for an Integrated Regional Water Management Implementation Grant. The following text box provides and example resolution. IRWM Grant Program – Proposal Solicitation Package for Implementation Grants, Step 2 11 March 2006 The following is an example resolution. RESOLUTION NO. _______ Resolved by the of the , that application be made to the California Department of Water Resources and State Water Resources Control Board to obtain an Integrated Regional Water Management Implementation Grant pursuant to the Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002 (Water Code Section 79560 et seq.), and to enter into an agreement to receive a grant for the: . The of the is hereby authorized and directed to prepare the necessary data, conduct investigations, file such application, and execute a grant agreement with California Department of Water Resources or State Water Resources Control Board. Passed and adopted at a meeting of the on . Authorized Original Signature: ___________________________ Printed Name: ________________________________________ Title: _______________________________________________ Clerk/Secretary: _______________________________________ Eligible Applicant Documentation: Eligible applicants are public agencies, including cities, counties, districts, joint powers authorities, a state agency or department, or other political subdivisions of the State or non-profit organizations that are a California Corporation organized under Section 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4), or 501(c)(5) of the federal internal revenue code. The Grantee must provide a written statement containing the appropriate information outlined below: Public Agencies 1. Is the applicant a public agency as defined in the Guidelines, Section III? Please explain. 2. What is the statutory or other legal authority under which the applicant was formed and is authorized to operate? 3. Does the applicant have legal authority to enter into a grant agreement with the State of California? 4. Describe any legal agreements among partner agencies and/or organizations that ensure performance of the proposal and tracking of funds. Non-Profit Organizations 1. Is the applicant a non-profit agency as defined in the Guidelines, Section III? Please explain. 2. Does the applicant have legal authority to enter into a grant agreement with the State of California? 3. Describe any legal agreements among partner agencies and/or organizations that ensure performance of the proposal and tracking of funds. 4. Include a copy of the certificate of incorporation for the organization. Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) – Guidelines, Section III.B identified compliance with the Urban Water Management Act (Act) as an Eligibility Criterion. Urban water suppliers (Supplier) are required to file an UWMP at least once every five years, on or before December 31, in years ending in five and zero. The 2005 UWMPs were due by December 31, 2005 and will be reviewed by DWR staff on a continuous basis to determine whether or not the UWMPs are complete, i.e. in full compliance with the Act. DWR will provide the Supplier who prepared the UWMP with a review letter indicating whether the UWMP is complete or incomplete. For assistance see the Foreword of this PSP for the appropriate contact person. Applicants and participating agencies that are urban water suppliers and which have projects that would receive funding through an IRWM Implementation grant must have their 2005 UWMP deemed complete by DWR, before DWR and the State Water Board approve the Step 2 Implementation grant awards (See Section VI – Schedule of the PSP). For UWMPs IRWM Grant Program – Proposal Solicitation Package for Implementation Grants, Step 2 12 March 2006 that are deemed complete after the Step 2 application submittal date but prior to the approval of grant awards, an electronic copy of the DWR review letter must be emailed to Ms. Tracie Billington at tracieb@water.ca.gov upon receipt of that letter. If the Supplier adopted a 2005 UWMP by December 31, 2005, submitted it to DWR within thirty days of that date, and received a review letter stating the 2005 UWMP was complete (in compliance with the UWMP Act), include a copy of the review letter in Attachment 1. If the Supplier adopted a 2005 UWMP by December 31, 2005, submitted it to DWR within thirty days of that date, and received a review letter stating that the 2005 UWMP was incomplete (not in compliance with the UWMP Act), the applicant is encouraged to contact the DWR District representative who reviewed the UWMP for technical assistance (see the Foreword for the appropriate contact person) and to use the review letter to revise the 2005 UWMP for re-submittal. DWR will review the revised 2005 UWMP and issue another review letter. If the Supplier has submitted a 2005 UWMP, but DWR has yet to review it, please indicate in Attachment 1 when it was submitted to DWR. If the Supplier did not submit a 2005 UWMP by January 30, 2006, it must be submitted as soon as possible, so that DWR can review the 2005 UWMP and make a completeness determination. Indicate in Attachment 1 when the UWMP will be submitted to DWR. Groundwater Management Plan Compliance – Guidelines, Section III.B identified Groundwater Management Plan (GWMP) compliance as an Eligibility Criterion. For groundwater management and recharge projects and for projects with potential groundwater impacts, either positive or negative, the applicant or the participating agency responsible for such projects must provide in Attachment 1 the following, as applicable: If the Proposal does not contain a groundwater management or recharge project or none of the projects in the Proposal have a potential to impact groundwater, either positively or negative, so indicate, and include in Attachment 1 the justification for such a conclusion. Identification of projects in the Proposal that involve any groundwater management or groundwater recharge or may have either positive or negative groundwater impacts. The agency(ies) that will implement such project(s). The status of the applicable GWMP compliance option as described below: The applicant or participating agency has prepared and implemented a GWMP that is in compliance with CWC § 10753.7. The applicant or participating agency participates or consents to be subject to a GWMP, basin-wide management plan, or other IRWM program or plan that meets the requirements of CWC § 10753.7. The applicant or participating agency conforms to the requirements of an adjudication of water rights in the subject groundwater basin. The applicant or participating agency is in the process of revising the GWMP to be compliant with CWC § 10753. In which case, Attachment 1 must state the estimated date for adoption, which must be within 1 year of submittal of the Step 2 Implementation Grant application (i.e., before June 8, 2007). Copies of applicable GWMP. IRWM Grant Program – Proposal Solicitation Package for Implementation Grants, Step 2 13 March 2006 For applicant’s whose IRWM Plan has not changed from Step 1, the applicant has the option of either accepting its Step 1 score for the IRWM Plan portion of the score or submitting the information detailed below. If the applicant chooses to retain its Step 1 score do not provide the information detailed below. Instead provide separate Attachments 2, 3, and 4 stating that the applicant wishes to retain its Step 1 score. Also provide the Step 1 PIN. Attachment 2 Consistency with Minimum IRWM Plan Standards For the “AttachmentName”, following the naming convention shown in Section II of this PSP, use “MinStd” for this attachment. Document how the IRWM Plan meets each of the Minimum IRWM Plan Standards presented in the Guidelines and provide a reference to the page of the IRWM Plan where this is evident. To be eligible for funding, the applicant must document that its IRWM Plan meets the Minimum IRWM Plan Standards. This is a pass/fail criterion. Attachment 2 must be no more than 2 pages in length using a minimum 10-point type font. Attachment 3 Adopted IRWM Plan and Proof of Formal Adoption For the “AttachmentName”, following the naming convention shown in Section II of this PSP, use “IRWMPlan” for this attachment. Please submit your IRWM Plan and proof of adoption. For applicants with an adopted IRWM Plan or functionally equivalent plans – submit an electronic copy of the adopted plan with proof of formal adoption (i.e. a signature page, with dates of signature) for all agencies and organizations approving the plan or other documentation that the plan has been adopted. For applicants without an adopted IRWM Plan or functionally equivalent plans – submit an electronic copy of the most recent draft Plan or functionally equivalent plan in its most current state. If a Plan has not been adopted, then the applicant must also provide a detailed schedule showing the major steps and milestones needed to ensure that a Plan will be adopted no later than January 1, 2007. Attachment 4 Consistency with IRWM Plan Standards For the “AttachmentName”, following the naming convention shown in Section II of this PSP, use “ConsisStand” for this attachment. Using the requirements shown in Guidelines, Appendix A, document how the IRWM Plan addresses each standard listed. Structure Attachment 4 such that it has sub-sections that address each standard shown in the Guidelines, Appendix A,, i.e. “A. Regional Agency or Regional Water Management Group”, “B. Region Description”, etc. Within each sub-section document how the IRWM Plan meets each standard and provide a reference to the page(s) of the IRWM Plan where this is evident. The length of Attachment 4 must be limited to no more than 6 pages using a minimum 10-point type font. The Work Plan, Budget, and Schedule, Attachments 5, 6, and 7, deal specifically with the Proposal and are used to evaluate whether the projects are implementable and the applicant’s readiness to proceed. Attachment 5, 6, and 7 relate to one another and each should support the other. For example, if the work plan is detailed, the budget estimate should be equally detailed. Lump sum costs in the budget may indicate a work item that is less implementable. The detail and accuracy of the work plan and budget should support the readiness presented in the schedule. Work items that are not detailed or are unclear indicate to a reviewer that the items are not ready to proceed. Attachment 5 Work Plan For the “AttachmentName”, following the naming convention shown in Section II of this PSP, use “WorkPlan” for this attachment. See Exhibit A of this PSP for detailed guidance on preparing this attachment. There is no page limitation for Attachment 5; however, applicants are encouraged to be clear and concise. The work plan contains summary descriptions of all the projects constituting the Proposal and tasks (work items) necessary to complete each project in the Proposal. The work plan must be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate that the IRWM Grant Program – Proposal Solicitation Package for Implementation Grants, Step 2 14 March 2006 Proposal is ready for implementation. Work item submittals (e.g. deliverables) should be identified in the Work Plan. The Work Plan should identify linkages between and among projects that are critical to the success of the regional effort. Attachment 6 Budget For the “AttachmentName”, following the naming convention shown in Section II of this PSP, use “Budget” for this attachment. See Exhibit B for detailed guidance on preparation of this attachment. For each project contained in the Proposal, provide detailed budget documentation supporting the costs shown in Table B1, Budget. Table B-1 must be completed for each project in the Proposal and another form must be completed as a summary or roll-up budget for the entire Proposal. In addition, a detailed estimate of costs that supports the budget must be completed. For each budget category shown in Table B-1, there may be several work items and sub work items (e.g. tasks and sub-tasks). The work items and sub work items shown in the Work Plan, Attachment 5, and Schedule, Attachment 7, should agree with the information shown in Attachment 6. Applicants must consider the relevant labor code compliance requirements and the applicability of prevailing wage laws in developing the budget (Guidelines, Section IV). Attachment 7 Schedule For the “AttachmentName”, following the naming convention shown in Section II of this PSP, use “Schedule” for this attachment. Applicants must submit a schedule showing the sequence and timing of work items presented in the Proposal. The schedule must be consistent with the Work Plan and must show May 1, 2007, as the assumed effective date of the grant agreement. The schedule must show the start and end dates as well as milestones for each work item contained in the Work Plan and should be in a horizontal bar or Gantt chart format. An assumed end date of the grant agreement will not be established by DWR and the State Water Board, instead applicants must include a reasonable estimate of the end date, based on their Proposal including time for any final reports and invoicing. Work items may overlap. Applicants should show any dependence on predecessors by showing links between work items. If the IRWM PLAN has not been adopted, also include in the schedule the remaining milestones and dates for plan adoption. The schedule does not need to include any post construction monitoring. For Proposals utilizing a draft IRWM Plan, note any delays in the schedule to adopt the IRWM Plan, paying particular attention to whether the IRWM Plan will be adopted by January 1, 2007. Attachment 8 Scientific and Technical Merit Attachment 8, Scientific and Technical Merit is used to verify that appropriate background data gathering and studies have been performed in the development of the Proposal and to assess the Proposal’s ability to produce the benefits claimed. Applicants should note that the technical information provided in this Attachment will also be used in evaluating the Work Plan, Budget, and Schedule (Attachments 5-7). Furthermore, applicants must provide detailed technical information enabling a reviewer to understand and verify benefits that are claimed in Attachment 10, Economic Analysis – Water Supply and Water Quality Benefits and Attachment 11, Other Expected Benefits. If the benefits claimed in Attachments 10 and 11 are not based on sound technical analysis, it may result in lower scores in Attachments 10 and 11. If the relevant supporting information requested for Attachment 10 is provided in other Attachments, then reference the exact location, including page numbers, where the information can be found. For the “AttachmentName”, following the naming convention shown in Section II of this PSP, use “SciTech” for this attachment. Attachment 8 must be no more than 20 pages in length using a minimum 10-point type font. This attachment describes the scientific and technical merit of the Proposal and includes an assessment of the: 1) technical adequacy of the data and analysis used in developing each project contained in the Proposal and 2) feasibility of each project. In Attachment 8, applicants must submit the following items: A discussion for each project in the proposal that lists and briefly describes the data and studies that have been collected and performed that support the projects’ site location, feasibility, and technical methods. Include references to the page locations of the studies or reports that support the claims made in this discussion. See Section II for instructions on submitting such studies, reports, or other reference materials. IRWM Grant Program – Proposal Solicitation Package for Implementation Grants, Step 2 15 March 2006 Discussion of any project data gaps and references to work items in the Work Plan that would fill the data gaps. Attachment 9 Monitoring, Assessment, and Performance Measures For the “AttachmentName”, following the naming convention shown in Section II of this PSP, use “Measures” for this attachment. There is no page limitation for Attachment 9; however, applicants are encouraged to be clear and concise. This attachment presents the planned project monitoring, assessment, and performance measures that will demonstrate that the Proposal will meet its intended goals, achieve measurable outcomes, and provide value to the State of California. All grant recipients will be required to prepare a Project Assessment and Evaluation Plan (PAEP) at the initiation of implementation to outline how they will assess and evaluate performance and report on Proposal achievements. The PAEP lays out an evaluation and assessment process based on Proposal goals and outcomes, drawing from the results of grant products and deliverables. The purpose of Attachment 9 is to provide a preview of the information that will be included in the PAEP. For Attachment 9, applicants are required to submit Project Performance Measures Tables specific to their Proposal. Project Performance Measures Tables should include: project goals, desired outcomes, output indicators (measures to effectively track output), outcome indicators (measures to evaluate change that is a direct result of the work), measurement tools and methods, and targets (measurable targets that are feasible to meet during the life of the proposal). Additional guidance, including example Project Performance Measure Tables, can be found at the following State Water Board website: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/funding/paep.html A Project Performance Measures Table should be submitted for each project included in the Proposal. When multiple projects carry the same goals and outcomes, a combined table can be developed to cover those projects. The measurement parameters (metrics) should fit the performance evaluation needs of the Proposal. The metrics may include water quality measurements, measurement-based estimates of pollution load reductions, acres of habitat successfully restored, feet of stream channel stabilized, additional acre-feet of water supply, improved water supply reliability and flexibility, groundwater level measurements, stream flow measurements, improved flood control, or other quantitative measures or indicators. If the applicant has a completed PAEP, Monitoring Plans (MP), or Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), those documents may be submitted with Attachment 9, as supporting documentation. DWR or the State Water Board must approve the PAEP, MP, and/or QAPP prior to initiation of any monitoring supported by grant funds. Attachment 10 Economic Analysis – Water Supply and Water Quality Benefits For the “AttachmentName”, following the naming convention shown in Section II of this PSP, use “WSWQBen” for this attachment. See Exhibit C for detailed guidance on the preparation of this attachment. There is no page limitation for Attachment 10; however, applicants are encouraged to be clear and concise. This attachment deals with estimating and presenting the costs and benefits of water supply and water quality aspects of the Proposal. A qualitative analysis can be provided if it is not feasible to quantify the benefits and the applicant provides adequate justification. If possible, water supply and water quality benefits should be quantified either in economic terms or physical terms. The evaluation of water supply and water quality benefits is structured such that either water quality or water supply projects could achieve the highest score possible for this scoring criterion. The information contained in Attachment 10 will be evaluated by DWR and the State Water Board against the Scoring Criterion and will be used for “comparative analysis” of one grant application against another grant application and not as a means for DWR and the State Water Board to select an individual project from within a Proposal for funding. Attachment 11 Other Expected Benefits For the “AttachmentName”, following the naming convention shown in Section II of this PSP, use “OtherBen” for this attachment. See Exhibit D for detailed guidance on the preparation of this attachment. There is no page limitation for Attachment 11; however, applicants are encouraged to be clear and concise. Benefits derived from the Proposal may extend beyond the water supply or water quality benefits described in Attachment 10 (see above). This attachment allows applicants to claim benefits other than water supply and water quality IRWM Grant Program – Proposal Solicitation Package for Implementation Grants, Step 2 16 March 2006 benefits. Qualitative analysis is acceptable if it is not feasible to quantify the benefits and the applicant provides adequate justification. Attachment 12 Program Preferences For the “AttachmentName”, following the naming convention shown in Section II of this PSP, use “Preference” for this attachment. Attachment 12 must be no more than 10 pages in length using a minimum 10-point type font. Submit a discussion on how the Proposal assists in meeting the Program Preference(s) described in Guidelines, Section II.E. The discussion must identify the specific Program Preference(s) that the Proposal will meet; the certainty that the Proposal will meet the Program Preference(s); and the breadth and magnitude to which the Program Preference(s) will be met. Meeting the Program Preference(s) identified by the applicant will become a condition of the grant agreement in the event that the Proposal is awarded grant funding. Attachment 13 Statewide Priorities For the “AttachmentName”, following the naming convention shown in Section II of this PSP, use “Priority” for this attachment. Attachment 13 must be no more than 10 pages in length using a minimum 10-point type font. Submit a discussion on how the Proposal assists in meeting the Statewide Priority(ies) as described in Guidelines, Section II.F. Present the Statewide Priorities discussions separately. The discussion must identify the specific Statewide Priorities that the Proposal will meet; the certainty that the Proposal will meet the Statewide Priority(ies); and the breadth and magnitude to which the Statewide Priority(ies) will be met. Meeting the Statewide Priority(ies) identified by the applicant will become a condition of the grant agreement in the event that the Proposal is awarded grant funding. Attachment 14 Changes from Step 1 to Step 2 (If Applicable) For the “AttachmentName”, following the naming convention shown in Section II of this PSP, use “Changes” for this attachment. Attachment 14 is required if the IRWM PLAN or Proposal were changed from Step 1 to Step 2. Attachment 14 must be no more than 10 pages in length using a minimum 10-point type font. In Attachment 14, the applicant must clearly identify and discuss differences between the Step 1 and Step 2. In general, those differences must be limited to necessary modifications to improve the IRWM Plan or Proposal, changes needed to reduce the grant request to $25 million, and changes to schedules that reflect revised information. The applicant must ensure that the changes to the IRWM Plan or Proposal maintain or improve the quality of the application. DWR and the State Water Board will make a determination of continued eligibility for an implementation grant. As applicable, the application must detail changes to the following: Applicant – In the event the applicant has changed, please identify the Step 1 applicant name and the basis for the change. Consolidated Regions – In the event that regions, as presented in Step 1, have been consolidated in Step 2, please discuss how the separate IRWM Plans and Proposals that were evaluated in Step 1 were consolidated or coordinated to ensure effective water management for the consolidated region. Changes in Region Boundaries – If the region boundaries have changed since the Step 1 application, describe the changes and the reason for the changes. In addition, submit GIS files that describe the new regional boundary. The GIS files should be submitted together in a zip file. GIS files must include as a minimum those files with file extensions of “shp”, “shx”, “dbf”, and “prj.” The region boundaries will be used by DWR and the State Water Board to locate and display the IRWM regions that the various applicants have established. Please use the base layer found at the following link: http://www.grantsloans.water.ca.gov/grants/integregio.cfm to check compatibility of coordinate system, datum, and projection. Disadvantaged Communities – Submit only information that is required to document the changes from the Step 1 application. This includes, but is not limited to, explanation, data, or calculation; however, there is no requirement to resubmit all data or calculations from Step 1. Supply enough information so that the reviewers can understand the changes and impacts of those changes in terms of disadvantaged communities. IRWM Grant Program – Proposal Solicitation Package for Implementation Grants, Step 2 17 March 2006 Attachment 15 Modification of River or Stream Channel (If Applicable) For the “AttachmentName”, following the naming convention shown in Section II of this PSP, use “ChannelMod” for this attachment. There is no page limitation for Attachment 15; however, applicants are encouraged to be clear and concise. Attachment 15 must be completed for any Proposal that includes a project that modifies a river or stream channel. The applicant must provide documentation that the environmental impacts resulting from such modification will be fully mitigated, considering all of the impacts of the modification and any mitigation, environmental enhancement, and environmental benefit resulting from the project. Also, the applicant should address whether, on balance, any environmental enhancement or benefit equals or exceeds any negative environmental impacts of the project. If DWR and the State Water Board determine that on-balance environmental impacts of such modifications will not be fully mitigated, the corresponding portion of the Proposal will not be eligible for grant funding (Guidelines, Section IV.D). Attachment 16 CALFED ROD Consistency (If Applicable) For the “AttachmentName”, following the naming convention shown in Section II of this PSP, use “CALFEDROD” for this attachment. Attachment 16 must be completed for Proposals that assist in meeting one or more of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program goals. Such Proposals must be consistent with the CALFED Programmatic ROD and must be implemented, to the maximum extent possible, through local and regional programs. Please complete Form 1 contained in Exhibit E of this PSP for each project within the Proposal that assists in meeting the CALFED Bay-Delta Program goals (Guidelines, Section IV.F). Attachment 17 Letters of Support or Opposition (If Applicable) For the “AttachmentName”, following the naming convention shown in Section II of this PSP, use “Letters” for this attachment. Attachment 17 must be used to submit electronic copies of any letters of support for or opposition to the Proposal or individual projects contained within the Proposal. General letters of support or opposition will not be considered. Letters of support or opposition must clearly state how the implementation of the proposal/project will benefit or adversely impact the individual or entity providing the letter. Letters submitted later than the application due date either electronically or hard copy will not be considered by the technical reviewers. All letters should be addressed to: Ms. Shahla Farahnak State Water Resources Control Board Division of Financial Assistance 1001 I Street, 16th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Ms. Tracie Billington Department of Water Resources Division of Planning and Local Assistance P.O. Box 942836 Sacramento, CA 94236-0001 IRWM Grant Program – Proposal Solicitation Package for Implementation Grants, Step 2 18 March 2006 V APPLICATION SCORING PROCESS The entire review process is discussed in detail in Guidelines, Section V.G. Applications will first be screened for eligibility and completeness in accordance with Guidelines, Section V. Applications that are complete and eligible will be scored based on the evaluation criteria presented in Table 3 of this PSP. Table 3 consists of ranking criteria in three subject areas with the possible point assignments as follows: Adequacy of the IRWM Plan – 30 points Adequacy of the Proposal – 80 points Statewide Priorities – 30 points Each criterion will be scored on a scale of 1 to 5, with a 1 being “low” and a 5 being “high.” The score for each criterion will then be multiplied by the weighting factor shown in Table 3 of this PSP. Please note that the score of the IRWM Plan which had a maximum possible score of 60 points in Step1, will be reduced by one-half by dividing the final IRWM Plan score by 2. Possible scores range from a minimum score of 28 points to a maximum possible score of 140 points. Where standard scoring criteria is applied points will be assigned for a criterion as follows: A score of 5 points will be awarded where the criterion is fully addressed and supported by thorough and wellpresented documentation and logical rationale. A score of 4 points will be awarded where the criterion is fully addressed but is not supported by thorough documentation or sufficient rationale. A score of 3 points will be awarded where the criterion is less than fully addressed and documentation and/or rationale are incomplete or insufficient. A score of 2 points will be awarded where the criterion is marginally addressed. A score of 1 point will be awarded where the criterion is not addressed or no documentation or rationale is presented. IRWM Grant Program – Proposal Solicitation Package for Implementation Grants, Step 2 19 March 2006 Table 3 – Scoring Criteria and Scoring Standard Criteria Weighting Factor Range of Points Score Possible Scoring Standard Adequacy of IRWM Plan Consistency with Minimum Standards This evaluation will focus on whether the applicant has demonstrated that the IRWM Plan meets the minimum standards Adopted IRWM Plan and Proof of Formal Adoption Pass/Fail A score of 5 will be awarded if the applicant has a Plan that has been formally adopted by: Formal adoption must be documented by a resolution or other written documentation officially accepting the Plan, with signatures and dates of signatures for the regional agency or all of the agencies and organizations involved in the Plan. • The governing body of the regional agency authorized to develop the Plan and has responsibility for implementation of the Plan; or • The governing bodies of the agencies and organizations that participated in the development of the Plan and have responsibility for implementation of the Plan. 5 1 4 A score of 4 will be awarded for those applicants with a Plan in place, but where it can only be confirmed that a majority of the necessary participants have formally adopted the Plan. 3 A score of 3 will be awarded for those applicants with a Plan in place, but where it can only be confirmed that less than half of necessary participants have formally adopted the Plan. 2 A score of 2 will be awarded for those applicants with a Plan in place, but where documentation of adoption by any participants is not provided. A score of 2 will also be awarded to applicants that demonstrate a schedule for adoption of a Plan under development by January 1, 2007, and can demonstrate involvement of a majority of necessary participants. 1 A score of 1 will be awarded for applicants that have not formally adopted a Plan, and do not have a schedule to adopt the Plan by the January 1, 2007 deadline. 1-5 IRWM Grant Program – Proposal Solicitation Package for Implementation Grants, Step 2 20 March 2006 Table 3 – Scoring Criteria and Scoring Standard Criteria Weighting Factor Range of Points Score Possible Scoring Standard Description of Region Scoring will be based on whether the applicant has adequately described the IRWM Plan region, and whether the defined region is appropriate to the planning and implementation. Was a map or maps, with accompanying descriptive narrative, showing the region encompassed by the IRWM Plan provided? Did the map/maps include appropriate internal boundaries to the region, major water related infrastructure, and major land-use divisions withi