HomeMy WebLinkAboutRESOLUTIONS - 10242017 - 2017/3821
GRANT GUIDELINES
Fiscal Year 2017-18
PROPOSITION 1
Delta Conservancy Ecosystem Restoration and
Water Quality Grant Program
FUNDED BY THE
Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure
Improvement Act of 2014
2
Table of Contents
Quick Facts ............................................................................................................................................................ 5
A. Types of Projects the Conservancy Funds ........................................................................................................ 5
B. Where Projects Can be Located ....................................................................................................................... 5
C. Entities Eligible to Receive Funding .................................................................................................................. 5
D. Available Funding ............................................................................................................................................. 5
E. Timeline ............................................................................................................................................................ 5
F. Contact Information ......................................................................................................................................... 5
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 6
A. Background ....................................................................................................................................................... 6
B. Purpose of Grant Guidelines ............................................................................................................................ 6
Grant Program Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 7
A. Program Description and Focal Areas .............................................................................................................. 7
B. Grant Categories ............................................................................................................................................... 9
C. Geographic Area of Focus ............................................................................................................................... 10
D. Funding Available ........................................................................................................................................... 10
E. Grant Terms .................................................................................................................................................... 11
Eligibility Requirements ....................................................................................................................................... 12
A. Bond Eligibility Requirements ........................................................................................................................ 12
B. Eligible Applicants ........................................................................................................................................... 12
C. Ineligible Projects ........................................................................................................................................... 13
D. Eligible Expenses ............................................................................................................................................. 13
E. Ineligible Expenses ......................................................................................................................................... 13
Grant Cycle Overview .......................................................................................................................................... 15
A. 2017-2018 Grant Cycle Important Dates ........................................................................................................ 15
B. Concept Proposal Solicitation Process ........................................................................................................... 15
C. Full Proposal Solicitation Process ................................................................................................................... 16
D. Scoring Threshold and Funding Decisions ...................................................................................................... 16
3
Proposal Instructions ........................................................................................................................................... 18
A. Concept Proposal Instructions ........................................................................................................................ 18
B. Concept Proposal Review ............................................................................................................................... 20
C. Full Proposal Instructions ............................................................................................................................... 21
D. Evaluation Criteria for Full Proposal ............................................................................................................... 24
Proposal Requirements ....................................................................................................................................... 27
A. Conflict of Interest .......................................................................................................................................... 27
B. Confidentiality ................................................................................................................................................ 27
C. California Conservation Corps ........................................................................................................................ 27
D. Environmental Compliance ............................................................................................................................ 28
E. Water Rights ................................................................................................................................................... 28
F. Best Available Science .................................................................................................................................... 30
G. Adaptive Management ................................................................................................................................... 30
A. Performance Monitoring and Assessment ..................................................................................................... 32
B. Long-Term Management ................................................................................................................................ 35
C. Land Tenure .................................................................................................................................................... 36
D. Land Acquisitions ............................................................................................................................................ 36
E. Budget Tables ................................................................................................................................................. 38
F. Cost Share and State-Leveraged Funds .......................................................................................................... 39
G. Financial Management Systems Questionnaire and Cost Allocation Plan ..................................................... 40
H. Consultation and Cooperation with State and Local Agencies and Demonstration of Local Support ........... 40
I. Disadvantaged Communities .......................................................................................................................... 41
Requirements if Funded ...................................................................................................................................... 42
A. Grant Provisions ............................................................................................................................................. 42
B. Loss of Funding ............................................................................................................................................... 42
C. Labor Code Compliance .................................................................................................................................. 43
D. Reporting ........................................................................................................................................................ 43
E. Signage and Recognition ................................................................................................................................ 43
Appendices .......................................................................................................................................................... 44
Appendix A: Glossary of Terms ............................................................................................................................... 44
4
Appendix B: Key State, Federal, and Local Plans and Tools .................................................................................... 48
Appendix C: Program Requirements Checklist ........................................................................................................ 50
Appendix D: Ecosystem and Land Use Types .......................................................................................................... 57
Appendix E: Land Acquisition Checklist ................................................................................................................... 62
Appendix F: State Auditing Requirements .............................................................................................................. 64
5
Quick Facts
A. Types of Projects the Conservancy Funds
The Conservancy‘s Proposition 1 Ecosystem Restoration and Water Quality Grant Program funds
competitive grants for multibenefit ecosystem and watershed protection and restoration
projects in accordance with statewide priorities. The Conservancy will fund projects that address
at least one of the following programmatic focal areas:
• Ecosystem Protection, Restoration, and Enhancement
• Water Quality
• Water-related Agricultural Sustainability
The Conservancy will grant funds for two project categories:
• Category 1 planning projects that advance pre-project activities necessary for a specific,
on-the-ground project.
• Category 2 implementation projects that advance on-the-ground implementation
projects and land acquisition projects. Category 2 projects must have an expected useful
life of at least fifteen years.
B. Where Projects Can be Located
The Conservancy will fund projects within or benefitting the Delta and Suisun Marsh as defined
in Public Resources Code Section 85058 (a map can be found at this link:
http://deltacouncil.ca.gov/docs/dsc-tabloid-size-map-legal-delta).
C. Entities Eligible to Receive Funding
• California public agencies
• Nonprofit organizations
• Tribal organizations
• Public utilities
• Mutual water companies, including local and regional companies
D. Available Funding
The Conservancy will award up to $9.3 million during the 2017-2018 grant cycle.
E. Timeline
• Concept Proposal Due: August 31, 2017
• Full Proposal Due: November 30, 2017
• Board Consideration of Awards: March 28, 2018
• Grant Agreements Executed: Fall 2018
F. Contact Information
Please contact the Delta Conservancy at prop1grants@deltaconservancy.ca.gov. More
information can be found at: http://deltaconservancy.ca.gov/prop-1/.
6
Introduction
A. Background
The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy (Conservancy) is a primary State agency in the
implementation of ecosystem restoration in the Delta and supports efforts that advance
environmental protection and the economic well-being of Delta residents. The Conservancy
works collaboratively and in coordination with local communities, leading efforts to protect,
enhance, and restore the Delta’s economy, agriculture and working landscapes, and
environment, for the benefit of the Delta region, its local communities, and the citizens of
California.
Voters approved the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014
(Proposition 1) in November 2014. Proposition 1 provides funding to implement the three
objectives of the California Water Action Plan: more reliable water supplies, restoration of
important species and habitat, and a more resilient and sustainably managed water
infrastructure. Proposition 1 identifies $50 million for the Conservancy “for competitive grants
for multibenefit ecosystem and watershed protection and restoration projects in accordance
with statewide priorities” (Sec. 79730 and 79731). Per Proposition 1 and the Conservancy’s
enabling legislation, the Conservancy’s Grant Program will emphasize projects using public lands
and private lands purchased with public funds, and those that maximize voluntary landowner
participation in projects that provide measureable and long-lasting habitat or species
improvements in the Delta. To the extent feasible, projects need to promote State planning
priorities and sustainable communities strategies consistent with Government Code
65080(b)(2)(B). All proposed projects must be consistent with statewide priorities as identified
in Proposition 1, the California Water Action Plan, the Conservancy’s enabling legislation and
Conservancy’s 2017-2022 Strategic Plan, the Delta Plan, and applicable species recovery plans.
Links to Proposition 1 and the other plans and documents can be found in Appendix B: Key
State, Federal, and Local Plans and Tools.
B. Purpose of Grant Guidelines
The Grant Guidelines (Guidelines) establish the process and criteria that the Conservancy will
use to administer its Proposition 1 Ecosystem Restoration and Water Quality Grant Program.
These Guidelines provide instructions for completing the required concept and full proposals.
Prior to their initial adoption in 2015, the Conservancy posted draft Guidelines on its website for
30 days and hosted three public meetings as required by Section 79706(b) of Proposition 1. The
Guidelines have been subsequently revised and reposted on the Conservancy’s website for 30
days, and comment was invited at another public meeting.
7
Grant Program Overview
A. Program Description and Focal Areas
The Conservancy‘s Proposition 1 Ecosystem Restoration and Water Quality Grant Program
funds competitive grants for multibenefit ecosystem and watershed protection and
restoration projects in accordance with statewide priorities. The Conservancy will fund
projects that address at least one of the following programmatic focal areas:
• Ecosystem Protection, Restoration, and Enhancement
• Water Quality
• Water-related Agricultural Sustainability
Ecosystem Protection, Restoration, and Enhancement
The objective of this programmatic focal area is to protect, restore, and enhance ecosystem
functions to improve the health and resiliency of native wildlife species in the Delta. This will
require restoring greater extent, diversity, and connectivity of habitats as linked mosaics
throughout the Delta landscape, as well as the underlying physical processes that create and
maintain ecosystem function. The Conservancy is seeking to fund projects that are consistent
with State priorities, including those that:
• Protect, restore, and/or enhance open water, wetland, riparian, and upland
ecosystems, including:
o Creating or improving fish and wildlife corridors.
o Enhancing habitat value along levees.
o Creating or enhancing habitat value of managed wetlands.
o Improving watershed health, restoring inland wetlands, or implementing natural
community conservation plans and/or habitat conservation plans to benefit
endangered, threatened, or migratory species.
o Acquiring land or conservation easements.
• Recover anadromous fish populations and their habitats, including fish passage barrier
removal projects.
• Enhance habitat values on agricultural lands.
• Reduce or eliminate invasive species.
• Adapt watersheds to reduce the impacts of climate change, including developing
wetlands for carbon management.
The Conservancy will not fund projects associated with regulatory compliance
responsibilities.1
1 Proposition 1 funds cannot be used to meet the existing obligations for habitat restoration established through
the biological opinions for the State Water Project (SWP) and Central Valley Project operations (USFWS 2008,
NMFS 2009), the CDFW Longfin Smelt Incidental Take Permit for SWP Delta operations, or any other mitigation
obligation of any party.
8
Water Quality
The objective of this focal area is to implement projects that contribute to the improvement of
water quality in the Delta, and that will improve ecosystem or watershed condition, function,
and resiliency, including projects that provide multiple public benefits and improve drinking
and agricultural water quality or water supplies. Examples of water quality projects include
those that:
• Improve management practices to reduce the use, availability, and/or runoff of
chemicals (such as nutrients or bio-stimulatory substances, pesticides, or other
contaminants) into waterbodies.
• Reduce erosion or runoff of sediment into waterbodies.
• Improve water management practices to improve water quality in waterways.
• Improve water quality by addressing impacts of non-native, invasive vegetation.
• Protect sensitive watershed lands to avoid or reduce water quality impacts from
encroaching land uses.
• Increase flow in periods of limited water supply.
Water-related Agricultural Sustainability
The objective of this focal area is to promote water-related agricultural sustainability projects
that also provide ecosystem and/or watershed protection and/or restoration benefits.
Examples of water-related agricultural sustainability projects include those that:
• Improve water management to support agriculture and provide ecosystem and/or
watershed protection and/or restoration benefits.
• Develop infrastructure or implement other improvements that enhance agricultural
productivity and provide ecosystem and/or watershed protection and/or restoration
benefits.
• Minimize the detrimental impacts of water diversions for agriculture, including by
consolidating existing intakes and screening new intakes.
• Sustain agricultural productivity and enhance the ecosystem and/or watershed
protection and/or restoration benefits of agricultural lands, including:
o Planting hedgerows and native vegetation to increase support for native
terrestrial wildlife (e.g., native pollinators beneficial to agricultural productivity).
o Modifying planting, harvesting, irrigating, or other practices on productive
fields.
o Implementing flexible management in agricultural areas to support diverse and
dynamic ecosystems and watersheds.
o Installing livestock exclusion fencing along drainage canals and other sensitive
waterways to improve water quality and/or reduce habitat disturbance.
• Support continued farming and minimize detrimental impacts to water quality,
including:
o Assisting with the exclusion or drainage of seepage water to reduce salinity
intrusion affecting agricultural lands and improve the quality of agricultural
discharges.
o Developing and implementing best management practices to improve the
quality of agricultural discharges.
9
• Acquire an interest in real property to protect agriculture and to provide ecosystem
and/or watershed protection and/or restoration benefits.
The examples provided above are offered as guidance for potential applicants and are not
exhaustive nor a guarantee of individual project eligibility or funding. Eligibility and funding
determinations will be made on a project-by-project basis. Projects must comply with all legal
requirements, including the State General Obligation Bond Law, to be eligible.
B. Grant Categories
The Conservancy will grant funds for two project categories:
Category 1: Planning
Planning projects advance pre-project activities necessary for a specific on-the-ground project
that meets the Conservancy’s Grant Program eligibility criteria. Please note that receiving a
Category 1 grant for a project does not guarantee that a Category 2 implementation grant will
be awarded for the same project.
The Conservancy seeks to fund planning projects that will lead to eligible implementation
projects, and is committed to promoting the development of projects in the Delta that will
address at least one of the Grant Program’s focal areas. The Conservancy encourages the use
of Category 1 grants to develop projects that are based on best available science.
Examples of Category 1 project activities include:
• Project management/administration
• Project scoping: partnership development, outreach to impacted parties, stakeholder
coordination, negotiation of site access and land tenure
• Planning and design: engineering design, planting plans, identifying appropriate best
management practices
• Environmental compliance: permitting, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
activities, Delta Plan consistency
• Science: developing adaptive management and monitoring plans, baseline monitoring,
biological surveys, and studies that will inform and aid in implementation of an on-the-
ground project
• Grant development for Proposition 1 project implementation funds (as part of a larger
planning grant; cannot be a stand-alone proposal for grant development).
Category 2: Implementation
Implementation projects advance on-the-ground implementation and land acquisition
projects. Implementation projects must result in the construction, improvement, or
acquisition of a capital asset that will be maintained for a minimum of 15 years.
Category 2 projects are "shovel ready" projects that have advanced to the stage where
planning and engineering design plans are near completion. Applicants must, at a minimum,
have completed intermediate plans (i.e., design plans at least 65% level of development; see
Appendix A: Glossary of Terms for a complete definition of project engineering design terms).
Implementation projects may include final design and permitting as project activities.
10
CEQA and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance must be completed prior to
grant award. The Board may, however, elect to reserve funds for projects that have not yet
completed CEQA/NEPA. A reservation of funds does not guarantee that the grant will be
awarded. For the Board to consider reserving funds, the applicant must anticipate completing
environmental review within six months of the date the Board considers awards. Once
complete, the Board will review the environmental document(s), determine whether to make
the necessary CEQA findings, and approve the project.
Examples of Category 2 project activities include:
• Final planning and design
• Environmental compliance: permitting, Delta Plan consistency
• Science: developing adaptive management and monitoring plans, baseline monitoring,
pre- and post-project monitoring
• Construction activities: dredging, earthmoving, construction of infrastructure
• Habitat restoration and enhancement: planting and revegetation, invasive vegetation
removal, implementation of Best Management Practices
• Acquisition of real property: appraisals (including water rights appraisals), negotiation,
due diligence, surveys, escrow fees, title insurance, closing costs
• Post-project maintenance within the three-year funding term
• Project management/administration
C. Geographic Area of Focus
The Conservancy will fund projects within or benefitting the Delta and Suisun Marsh as
defined in Public Resources Code Section 85058 (a map can be found at this link:
http://deltacouncil.ca.gov/docs/dsc-tabloid-size-map-legal-delta).
The Conservancy may take or fund an action outside the Delta and Suisun Marsh if the Board
makes all of the findings described in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Reform Act of 2009,
Sec. 32360.5. Applicants applying for funds for projects outside of the Delta and Suisun Marsh
must be prepared to address the following:
• How the project implements the ecosystem goals of the Delta Plan.
• How the project is consistent with the requirements of any applicable State and federal
permits.
• How the project will provide significant benefits to the Delta.
D. Funding Available
The Conservancy will award up to $9.3 million during the 2017-2018 grant cycle to eligible
entities pursuant to these Guidelines.
11
E. Grant Terms
Grant Funding Term: The time period, not to exceed three years, during which grantees may
incur and be reimbursed for grant-related expenses.
Grant Term: The 15-year time period during which Category 2 projects must be maintained to
comply with the State General Obligation Bond Law.
All grantees should be able to spend Conservancy-awarded funding within the three-year
Grant Funding Term. For grants for Category 2 projects, the Grant Term extends for an
additional 12 years beyond the Grant Funding Term, for a total of 15 years, to comply with the
State General Obligation Bond Law. For Category 2 projects, grantees must submit their final
report and invoice at the end of the Grant Funding Term, but will be held to the terms of the
grant agreement until the end of the 15-year Grant Term.
12
Eligibility Requirements
A. Bond Eligibility Requirements
The Conservancy’s Grant Program funds competitive grants for multibenefit ecosystem and
watershed protection and restoration projects that benefit the Delta and align with statewide
priorities. Grants are available for the planning and implementation of specific, on-the-ground
projects that comply with all legal requirements, including the State General Obligation Bond
Law. The State General Obligation Bond Law limits the use of bond funds to the construction,
acquisition, and long-term improvement of capital assets that have an expected useful life of at
least fifteen years (section 16727(a)).
B. Eligible Applicants
Eligible grant applicants are:
• California public agencies. Any city, county, district, or joint powers authority; State
agency; or public university.
• Nonprofit organizations. “Nonprofit organization” means an organization that is
qualified to do business in California and qualified under Section 501(c)(3) of Title 26 of
the United States Code and that has among its principal charitable purposes
preservation of land for scientific, recreational, scenic, or open-space opportunities,
protection of the natural environment, preservation or enhancement of wildlife,
preservation of cultural and historical resources, or efforts to provide for the enjoyment
of public lands.
• Tribal organizations. Eligible tribal organizations include any Indian Tribe, band, nation,
or other organized group or community, or a tribal agency authorized by a tribe, which
is listed on the National Heritage Commission’s California Tribal List or is federally
recognized.
• Public utilities. To be eligible for funding, projects proposed by public utilities that are
regulated by the Public Utilities Commission must have a clear and definite public
purpose and shall benefit the customers and not the investors.
• Mutual water companies, including local and regional companies. Additionally, in
order to be eligible:
o Projects proposed by mutual water companies must have a clear and definite
public purpose and shall benefit the customers of the water system and not the
investors.
o An urban water supplier must have adopted and submitted an urban water
management plan in accordance with the Urban Water Management Planning
Act.
o An agricultural water supplier must have adopted and submitted an agricultural
water management plan in accordance with the Agricultural Water
Management Planning Act.
o An agricultural water supplier or an urban water supplier must comply with the
requirements of Part 2.55 of their respective water management planning acts.
13
C. Ineligible Projects
The following projects are ineligible for the Conservancy’s Grant Program:
• Implementation projects that will not result in the construction, acquisition, or long-
term enhancement of a capital asset.
• Planning projects that do not relate to an eligible implementation project.
• Projects consisting solely of education, outreach, or events activities; however, these
types of activities may be included as part of the overall implementation of a project
eligible for Conservancy grant funds to the extent they contribute to project
implementation.
• Projects to design, construct, operate, mitigate, or maintain Delta conveyance facilities.
• Projects dictated by a legal settlement or mandated to address a violation of, or an
order (citation) to comply with, a law or regulation.
• Projects that subsidize or decrease the pre-existing mitigation obligations of any party.
• Projects that do not comply with all legal requirements of Proposition 1 and other
applicable laws.
D. Eligible Expenses
Eligible expenses incurred upon the start date listed in the grant agreement and prior to the end
of the Grant Funding Term may be directly reimbursed. Direct costs which can be specifically
and easily identified as generated by and in accordance with the provisions or activity
requirements of the project, and which are for work performed within the specified terms and
conditions of the grant agreement, are eligible for reimbursement. Cost share may be used
between the time that the full proposal is submitted to the Conservancy and the end of the
Grant Funding Term.
Indirect costs that do not have a specific direct relationship to the project but are a requirement
for the completion of the project may be eligible for reimbursement, at a rate of up to twenty
(20) percent of the project implementation costs associated with personnel services and general
operating expenses. See the Budget Tables section below for more information.
E. Ineligible Expenses
Grant funding may not be used to:
• Establish or increase an endowment or legal defense fund.
• Make a monetary donation to other organizations.
• Pay for food or refreshments.
• Pay for tours.
• Pay for eminent domain processes.
• Subsidize or decrease the mitigation obligations of any party.
• Pay for the completion of environmental review pursuant to CEQA/NEPA for a Category
2 project (environmental review must be complete prior to the award of funds for a
Category 2 project).
14
If ineligible expenses are included in the project budget, the Conservancy may deem the project
to be ineligible. In some cases, the Conservancy may approve a project for funding with the total
amount of the award reduced by the amount of the ineligible expenses. In that event, the
Conservancy will contact the applicant to confirm that the project is still viable. Applicants
should avoid including ineligible expenses in the application and should contact Conservancy
staff with questions.
15
Grant Cycle Overview
The application process consists of two steps, a concept proposal and a full proposal. Applicants are
encouraged to contact Conservancy staff at any time during the grant proposal process. Because of the
competitive nature of the grant cycle, staff main be constrained in the type and amount of feedback
that it can provide during the full proposal submission period. The Conservancy will post any questions
of universal relevance on the Proposition 1 Grant Program web page to assist others with similar
questions. The Conservancy will post public workshop opportunities to the training page on its website:
http://deltaconservancy.ca.gov/prop-1-trainings/.
A. 2017-2018 Grant Cycle Important Dates
The Conservancy’s grant application process is approximately eight months long. Concept
proposals are solicited in the summer, full proposals are solicited in the fall, and funding is
awarded the following spring. Following grant awards, negotiating and executing a grant
agreement takes an additional three to six months. An applicant should not expect to begin
work prior to six months after Board approval of full proposals. All dates for the Conservancy’s
2017-2018 grant cycle are subject to change. Please check the Proposition 1 Grant Program web
page for the most up-to-date information.
Important dates for the 2017-18 grant cycle:
• Concept Proposal Submission Period – August 1–31, 2017
• Concept Proposal Review and Consultation Period – September 1–30, 2017
• Full Proposal Submission Period – October 2–November 30, 2017
• Full Proposal Review Period – December 1, 2017–March 27, 2018
• Board Consideration of Awards – March 28, 2018
• Grant Negotiation and Execution – April 1–September 30, 2018
B. Concept Proposal Solicitation Process
The first step in the application process is submittal of a short concept proposal that describes
the project that will be submitted for consideration during the full proposal solicitation. Concept
proposals are required.
Concept proposals are encouraged from any eligible applicant. Conservancy staff will review
concept proposals and provide feedback to all applicants to aid them in assembling a complete,
clear, and responsive full proposal. Concept proposals will not be scored. All applicants will be
provided with written comments on their concept proposals, as well as an opportunity to meet
with Conservancy staff to discuss feedback. Only proposals submitted prior to the submission
deadline (currently expected to be August 31, 2017) will be reviewed.
Applicants may, and are encouraged to, consult with the Conservancy during the drafting of
their concept proposal. Once a concept proposal has been submitted, Conservancy staff will
only be able to provide status updates until the proposal has been reviewed and a feedback
meeting is scheduled.
16
C. Full Proposal Solicitation Process
The second step in the application process is submittal of a full proposal. Each applicant is
responsible for deciding whether or not to submit a full proposal based on feedback received at
the concept proposal stage. A full proposal will only be accepted if a concept proposal was
submitted. Only full proposals submitted prior to the submission deadline (currently expected to
be November 30, 2017) will be considered.
After the full proposal application period ends, the Conservancy will conduct an administrative
review of full proposals. Projects that fail to meet the administrative review requirements may
not be moved on for full scoring. Administrative review includes:
• Review for eligibility, consistency with program requirements, and completeness
• Review for conflicts of interest
• Review of financial systems
• Legal review
• Notification of State and local agencies
• Site visits with all eligible applicants
Full proposals will also be evaluated and scored by Conservancy staff and an independent
professional review panel made up of State and federal agency technical experts. The
professional review panel will provide an additional independent review. Final scores will be
based on internal and external reviews.
Final scores and staff recommendations for funding will be posted on the Conservancy’s website
and shared with all applicants in advance of the Board’s consideration of projects for funding.
Submitted proposals will be available to the public upon request. The Board will consider and
take action on staff recommendations at a public meeting. Only projects approved by the Board
will be awarded funding. All applicants and members of the public will have the opportunity to
appear before the Board at this time. Any applicant whose proposal was not recommended for
full scoring or funding may contest the recommendations by notifying Conservancy staff in
writing by 5:00 p.m. at least three business days prior to the Board meeting at which funding
recommendations will be considered. The notification must describe the specific issues the
applicant wishes to contest.
If funding for a grant proposal is approved, Conservancy staff will work with the applicant to
complete a grant agreement that outlines reporting requirements, specific performance
measures, invoice protocols, and funding disbursal. This typically takes three to six months from
the date funding is awarded.
D. Scoring Threshold and Funding Decisions
All full proposals will be scored. Only proposals scoring 75 points or more are eligible to be
recommended to the Board for funding. A score of 75 points during the full proposal stage does
not guarantee that a grant award will be made or that a project will receive all of the requested
funding. Funding recommendations and decisions will be based upon scores and the
reasonableness of costs, as well as the diversity of the types of projects and their locations,
which together will create the maximum benefit within the Delta as a whole. If funding
requested by proposals that receive at least 75 points exceeds the funds available for the grant
17
cycle, the Conservancy may choose to award partial funding. The Board may also choose to
prioritize for approval any unfunded projects that scored more than 75 points, should
subsequent funding become available. If a project scores at least 75 points but does not
demonstrate strong local support or a lack of significant conflict from local interests, the
Conservancy reserves the right to not fund the project or require that the conflict is
satisfactorily resolved before awarding funding. The Board may, within its discretion, approve a
conditional award of funds or reserve funds to accommodate pending actions (e.g., completion
of CEQA).
18
Proposal Instructions
A. Concept Proposal Instructions
Please read the instructions below to submit a complete, clear, and responsive concept
proposal. All files should be submitted electronically one of two ways:
(1) via email to prop1grants@deltaconservancy.ca.gov; or
(2) via a removable storage device (such as a flash drive) or CD and mailed or hand
delivered to 1450 Halyard Drive, Suite 6, West Sacramento, CA 95691. In person
delivery should occur on normal business days between the hours of 8:00 am and 4:30
pm, with the exception of August 31, 2017 when drop-offs until 5:00 pm will be
accepted.
The concept proposal narrative should not exceed six pages (not including the required
supplementary materials, listed below). Applicants must use at least 11-point standard font,
single line spacing with one-inch page margins.
Concept Proposal Narrative
The following concept proposal requirements align with the required components of the full
proposal. The Conservancy expects concept proposals to provide a concise overview of the
requested information; full details are required in the full proposal.
Project Description and Organizational Capacity
Provide a clear description of the project proposed for Conservancy funding. The project
description must include:
• The need for the project.
• The project’s goals and objectives.
• General tasks that will be undertaken and work products or deliverables.
• Experience and qualifications of parties working on the project.
• For acquisition projects only, address the status of meeting the specific requirements for
acquisitions (see the Land Acquisitions section for more information).
Funding Request and Budget
In addition to the Budget Table (part of the supplementary materials), provide a description that
explains how budget items in the Budget Table align with project tasks described in the project
description. Along with other expenses, the description should explain how grant management
and reporting costs will be funded, either by the Conservancy’s Grant Program or using cost
share or State leveraged funds. Applicants are encouraged to review other Grant Program
requirements that may be eligible for Conservancy grant funding (e.g., Delta Plan consistency,
developing a landowner access agreement, etc.; see Appendix C: Proposal Requirements
Checklist for more information) and include these in their budgets where applicable. Describe
the status of cost share efforts, including the leveraging of State funds.
State Priorities/Project Benefits
Demonstrate that the project will yield multiple benefits aligned with State priorities as
described in:
19
• Proposition 1
• California Water Action Plan
• The Conservancy’s enabling legislation
• The Conservancy’s 2017-2022 Strategic Plan
• The Delta Plan
• Applicable species recovery plans and other related efforts, including the Sustainable
Groundwater Management Act (SGMA)
Category 1 projects should describe alignment with the above for the specific, on-the-ground
project for which planning is being conducted.
Readiness
Describe the readiness to proceed with the project, indicating any work that has already been
done and any additional work to be completed before beginning the work being proposed for
Conservancy funding. Describe permits and landowner agreements that will be required, if
applicable. Discuss the status of CEQA compliance, identify the CEQA lead agency, and specify
whether or not the Delta Conservancy is the expected lead agency at this stage. For Category 1
planning projects, describe how the proposed planning activities will advance the project toward
implementation.
Local Support
Describe support for the project, including individuals who and organizations that will be
participating in the project, cooperating on the project (providing guidance, etc.), and
supporting the project (not actively engaged, but aware of the project and supportive). Describe
the project’s approach to informing and consulting affected parties. At the full proposal stage,
applicants should be prepared to submit letters of support.
Scientific Merit
Describe the scientific basis of the proposed project and how best available science has been or
will be integrated into the project. In addition, describe how the project is applying the Delta
Plan’s adaptive management framework, as appropriate to the scope of the project. Describe
how climate change considerations are being taken into account. For Category 2 projects,
include a general description of the project’s approach to performance monitoring and
assessment, and include a Performance Measures Table using the Performance Measures Table
template provided on the Grant Program web page.
Concept Proposal Supplementary Materials
In addition to the six-page narrative, applicants must include:
1. Cover page listing the following information (one page maximum):
• Project name
• Project location (county, city/community, and any information that is more
specific to the project site)
• Project category (Category 1 or Category 2)
• Programmatic focal area (ecosystem protection, restoration, and enhancement,
water quality, and/or water-related agricultural sustainability)
20
• Proposed start/end date for the Grant Funding Term (note: start date may be no
earlier than six months after Board approval of the full proposal and end date
may be no later than three years after the start date)
• Organization/agency name and type (California public agency, nonprofit, tribe,
public utility, or mutual water company) and mailing address
• Primary contact’s name and contact information (mailing address, telephone
number, and email)
• Organization’s federal tax ID number
2. Map of project site. The map should provide detail sufficient to allow a person
unfamiliar with the area to locate the project, and must include a legend, scale, and
polygon indicating the footprint(s) of the project, and appropriately-labeled identifying
factors such roads, waterways, towns, and county boundaries.
3. Budget Table (template will be provided on the Grant Program web page).
4. Performance Measures Table (category 2 projects only; template will be provided on the
Grant Program web page).
B. Concept Proposal Review
Eligibility Review
Conservancy staff will review your proposal for eligibility and provide feedback based on the
following eligibility questions. Eligibility will be reassessed during the full proposal review
process.
Eligibility Questions
1. Will the project result in the construction, acquisition or long-term improvement of a capital
asset or is the project a planning effort that will lead to such project? A capital asset is
tangible physical property that has a useful life of at least fifteen years.
2. Is the project a mulitbenefit ecosystem or watershed protection or restoration project?
3. Is the project an ecosystem protection, restoration, or enhancement project; a water quality
project; or a water-related agricultural sustainability project that has ecosystem or
watershed benefits?
4. Is the project aligned with State priorities as described in Proposition 1, the California Water
Action Plan, the Conservancy’s enabling legislation and 2017-2022 Strategic Plan, and the
Delta Plan?
Evaluation
Staff will review proposals and provide feedback based on the evaluation questions below. All
concept proposal applicants will be provided with feedback regarding the soundness of the
concept and the readiness of a project to submit a full proposal, and to indicate what additional
information is recommended for inclusion in a proposal.
Project Description and Organizational Capacity
1. Does the project description explain the need, goals and objectives, tasks and
deliverables, and the related experience and qualifications of all parties working on the
project? For acquisition projects, what is the status of the project in addressing
requirements specific to acquisition projects? Is the budget reasonable?
21
Funding: Cost Share and Leveraging
2. Are cost share and leveraging addressed?
State Priorities
3. Does the project further Proposition 1 and State priorities, including implementation of
the California Water Action Plan, the Conservancy’s enabling legislation and 2017-2022
Strategic Plan, the Delta Plan, and applicable species recovery plans?
Readiness
4. For a Category 1 project, does the proposal demonstrate how the proposed planning
activities will advance the project toward implementation in a timely manner? For a
Category 2 project, what is the status of planning and permitting, and is the project
ready to begin?
Local Support
5. Does the project have local support and does it demonstrate an approach to informing
and consulting potentially affected parties?
Scientific Merit and Performance Measures
6. Is the scientific basis of the proposed project described, and does it demonstrate the
use of best available science? Is the applicant applying the Delta Plan’s adaptive
management framework, as appropriate to the scope of the project? Are climate
change considerations being taken into account? For Category 2 projects, how well is
performance monitoring and assessment described?
C. Full Proposal Instructions
Applicants may choose to submit a full proposal after submitting and receiving feedback on a
concept proposal. Concept proposals are required before a full proposal will be accepted.
Additional information about the content of the full proposal is included in the Proposal
Requirements section, below. The Conservancy will post full proposal application materials on
the Grant Program web page. For a checklist of all of the information required for the full
proposal, see Appendix C: Program Requirements Checklist. The full proposal includes the
following components:
1. Application form
2. Attachments
3. Supplementary materials
Application Form
The Conservancy will provide the application form, which is designed to collect information
about the project and the applicant and will serve as the basis of the project narrative on which
the proposal is evaluated. For more information about what is required on the application form,
please carefully read the Full Proposal Evaluation and Proposal Requirements sections below.
Attachments
Each application must include the required attachments, in the specified file type (Word or
Excel) and using the templates that the Conservancy provides. Required attachments include:
22
• Financial Management System Questionnaire and Cost Allocation Plan
• Schedule and List of Deliverables
• Line Item Budget by Task
• Funding by Source
The following attachments are required if relevant to the proposed project:
• California Conservation Corps Consultation
• Acquisition Table
• Performance Measures Table
• Ecosystem and Land Use Types
Supplementary Materials
Applicants must submit the following supplementary materials if they are relevant to the
proposed project.
Authorization or Resolution to Apply
Provide documentation of authorization to submit an application for grant funding to the
Conservancy.
• Nonprofit organizations, tribes, and local government agencies - A project-specific
governing board resolution is required. However, if the organization’s governing board
has delegated authority to a specific officer to act on behalf of that organization, that
officer may, in lieu of a resolution, submit a letter of authorization along with
documentation of the delegated authority. The documentation of delegated authority
must include language granting such authority and the date of delegation.
• State agencies - In lieu of a resolution, State agencies may submit a letter authorizing
the application. The letter must be on the agency’s letterhead, and must identify the
position (job title) of the authorized representative.
For both letters and resolutions, the authorized representative may be a particular person (or
persons) or a position (or positions). The advantage of having a position named as the
authorized representative is that a new letter or resolution will not be required should the
person currently holding the position change.
Documents Required of Nonprofit Applicants
Nonprofit applicants must submit Articles of Incorporation, IRS letters, and signed bylaws.
Nonprofits incorporated outside of California must submit documentation from the California
Secretary of State showing that they are permitted to do business in the State of California.
Documents Required of Tribal Organizations Tribes must show proof of its inclusion on the
National Heritage Commission’s California Tribal List, or proof of federal recognition.
Documents Required of Mutual Water Company
Urban water suppliers must submit their urban water management plan in accordance with the
Urban Water Management Planning Act (Part 2.6 (commencing with Sec. 10610) of Division 6).
Agricultural water suppliers must submit their agricultural water management plan in
accordance with the Agricultural Water Management Planning Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with
Sec. 10800) of Division 6).
23
Urban water suppliers and agricultural water suppliers must show proof of how they comply
with the requirements of Part 2.55 (commencing with Section 10608) of Division 6.
Information Required for Acquisition Projects
For acquisition projects, the following supplementary materials are required at the time of
application:
• Copy of the Purchase and Sale Agreement, Option Agreement, or Willing Seller Letter(s)
• Appraisal or Estimation of Fair Market Value
• Parcel Map with County Assessor’s Parcel Number(s)
Maps, Photos, and Site Plans
• Project Location Map – All full proposals must include a map identifying the project
site(s). The map should provide detail sufficient to allow a person unfamiliar with the
area to locate the project, and must include a legend, scale, and polygon indicating the
footprint(s) of the project, and appropriately-labeled identifying factors such roads,
waterways, towns, and county boundaries. Applicants are encouraged to provide a
satellite image or aerial photograph as the background of the map, if available. Maps
may not be hand drawn.
• Project Location Electronic File (kmz or Shapefile) – Required of all projects.
• Parcel Map with County Assessor’s Parcel Number(s) – For all acquisition projects
(required), and as applicable for other projects, provide an Assessor’s Parcel Map of the
project area with the parcel(s) identified by parcel number.
• Topographic Map – If applicable, submit a topographic map (preferred 1:24,000 scale)
detailed enough to identify the project area and elements as described in the proposal.
• Photos of the Project Site – If applicable, submit no more than 10 photos of the project.
• Site Plan – If applicable, provide a drawing or depiction indicating scale, project
orientation (e.g., north-south), what work the grantee will accomplish, where the work
will be done and the approximate square footage or acreage of any improvements that
are part of the grant scope. The plan should also indicate access points to the site.
Environmental Compliance
For all Category 2 projects for which CEQA requirements are complete, the applicant must
include all final CEQA documents. All Category 2 projects must submit a covered action checklist
with the full proposal. For more information on environmental compliance requirements, please
see the Proposal Requirements section, below.
Letters of Support and Cost Share Commitment Letters
Applicants must provide cost share commitment letters from all partners that are providing a
cost share. These letters must specifically confirm the dollar amount committed. Applicants
must provide a letter of support from the landowner of the project site if the applicant is not the
landowner. If applicable, applicants are strongly encouraged to provide a letter of support from
the entity providing water for a Category 2 implementation project. Applicants are encouraged
to provide letters of support for the project from project partners and stakeholders. Letters of
support should be submitted to the Conservancy with the full application materials.
24
Resolutions of Support from Applicable Local Government Agencies
A resolution of support from the Board of Supervisors from the county in which the project is
located is a component of the full proposal. If an applicant has another project-specific
resolution of support from the affected city, county, or local district, it should be included with
the full proposal in order to facilitate the overall assessment process.
D. Evaluation Criteria for Full Proposal
Eligibility Review
Conservancy staff will review your proposal for eligibility based on the following questions.
Projects will be deemed eligible only all four eligibility questions can be answered affirmatively.
Eligibility Questions (Yes/No)
1. Will the project result in the construction, acquisition or long-term improvement of a
capital asset or is the project a planning effort that will lead to such a project? A capital
asset is tangible physical property that has a useful life of at least fifteen years.
2. Is the project a mulitbenefit ecosystem or watershed protection or restoration project?
3. Is the project an ecosystem protection, restoration, or enhancement project; a water
quality project; or a water-related agricultural sustainability project that has ecosystem
or watershed benefits?
4. Is the project aligned with State priorities as described in with Proposition 1, the
California Water Action Plan, the Conservancy’s enabling legislation and 2017-2022
Strategic Plan, and the Delta Plan?
Evaluation and Scoring
Full proposals will be evaluated using the following criteria (for a maximum of 100 points). The
number of total possible points is indicated for each criterion. Projects must score a total of 75
points or more to be recommended for funding.
Project Description, Budget, and Organizational Capacity
1. How well does the proposal provide a clear description of the project, including:
• the need for the project, and project goals and objectives;
• the project’s tasks and deliverables (deliverables should be recorded on the
Schedule and List of Deliverables attachment); and
• for acquisition projects, how well does the proposal address the specific
requirements of the Conservancy’s enabling legislation and Grant Guidelines
that apply to acquisitions? (10 points)
2. How clear, reasonable, and justified is the project’s budget, including all budget tables?
(5 points)
3. To what extent does the proposal describe appropriate partnerships and organizational
capacity, and demonstrate the appropriate qualifications of affiliated staff and
committed partners? (5 points)
25
Funding: Cost Share and Leveraging
4. To what extent does the project have a cost share with private, federal, or local funding
to maximize benefits? (5 points)
• Cost share of >40% (5 points)
• Cost share of 31-40% (4 points)
• Cost share of 21-30% (3 points)
• Cost share of 11-20% (2 points)
• Cost share of 1-10% (1 point)
• Cost share of < 1% (0 points)
5. To what extent does the project leverage other State funds? (3 points)
• Cost share of >20% (3 points)
• Cost share of 11-20% (2 points)
• Cost share of 1-10% (1 point)
• Cost share of <1% (0 points)
State Priorities
6. How well does the proposal demonstrate alignment between a specific, on-the-ground
project and State priorities as described in Proposition 1, the California Water Action
Plan, the Conservancy’s enabling legislation and 2017-2022 Strategic Plan, the Delta
Plan, and applicable species recovery plans? Where relevant, proposals should discuss a
project’s alignment with regional plans. (15 points)
7. (a). For Category 1 projects, how well does the proposal explain how the planning effort
will contribute to a specific, on-the-ground project? (5 points)
7. (b). For Category 2 projects, how well does the proposal demonstrate plans for long-
term management and sustainability of the project for the required minimum of 15
years? (5 points)
Readiness
8. (a). For Category 1 projects, how well does the proposal demonstrate how the
proposed planning activities will advance the project toward implementation in a timely
manner, and how previous and subsequent phases will ensure that environmental
compliance and all data gaps are addressed? (12 points)
8. (b). For Category 2 projects, how complete is project planning including the status of
CEQA and permitting efforts, when will the project be ready to begin implementation,
and what is the status of land tenure (where applicable)? (12 points)
26
Local support
9. How well does the proposal demonstrate that the project has local support? How well
does the proposal demonstrate an approach to informing and consulting potentially
affected parties, and to avoiding, reducing, or mitigating conflicts with existing and
adjacent land uses? (20 points)
Scientific Merit
10. How well does the proposal explain the scientific basis of the proposed project including
the application of best available science? Does the proposal demonstrate the
application of the Delta Plan’s adaptive management framework, appropriate to the
scope of the proposed project? How well does the proposal address potential
vulnerabilities of the project site to climate change effects, and how the project will
account for and provide adaptation and/or resiliency to potential climate change
effects? For Category 2 projects, how well is performance assessment and monitoring
described? (20 points)
27
Proposal Requirements
A. Conflict of Interest
All applicants and individuals who participate in the review of submitted proposals are subject
to State and federal conflict of interest laws. Any individual who has participated in planning or
setting priorities for a specific solicitation or who will participate in any part of the grant
development and negotiation process on behalf of the public is ineligible to receive funds or
personally benefit from funds awarded through that solicitation. Employees of State and federal
agencies may participate in the review process as scientific/technical reviewers, but are subject
to the same State and federal conflict of interest laws.
If an applicant has a contract with the Conservancy and is contemplating applying for a grant,
the applicant should consult with Conservancy staff to determine eligibility. Failure to comply
with the conflict of interest laws, including business and financial disclosure provisions, will
result in the proposal being rejected and any grant agreement being declared void. Other legal
actions may also be taken. Applicable statutes include, but are not limited to, California
Government Code Section 1090 and Public Contract Code Sections 10365.5, 10410 and 10411.
B. Confidentiality
Once an applicant has submitted a proposal to the Conservancy, any privacy rights, as well as
other confidentiality protections afforded by law with respect to the application package, will be
waived. All proposals are public records under the California Government Code Sections 6250-
6276.48, and will be provided to the public upon request.
C. California Conservation Corps
The California Conservation Corps (CCC) is a State agency with local operations throughout the
State. The Certified Community Conservation Corps (as represented by the California
Association of Local Conservation Corps [CALCC]), is the representative for the certified local
conservation corps defined in Section 14507.5 of the Public Resources Code. Collectively, these
entities are referred to as the Corps. Prior to submitting a full proposal, all applicants shall first
consult with the Corps as to the feasibility of using their services to implement projects
[California Water Code (CWC) §79734] unless noted exceptions apply (Category 1 projects and
Category 2 acquisition projects are generally exempt). Applicants that fail to engage in such
consultation are not eligible to receive funding through the Conservancy’s grant program. The
Conservancy will provide on its Grant Program web page a form with additional guidance on the
steps necessary to ensure compliance, as well as sections to be completed by the applicant, the
CCC, and the CALCC.
If an applicant submits a proposal to the Conservancy for a project for which it has been
determined that Corps services can be used, the applicant must identify in the proposal the
appropriate Corps and the component(s) of the project in which they will be involved, and
include estimated costs for those services in the Budget Tables. Further, applicants awarded
funding must thereafter work with either the CCC or CALCC to develop a statement of work and
enter into a contract with the appropriate Corps.
28
D. Environmental Compliance
Activities funded under this Grant Program must be in compliance with applicable State and
federal laws and regulations, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Delta Plan, and other environmental permitting
requirements. The applicant is solely responsible for project compliance. All applicants must list
and describe existing and additional permits required for the project. Applicants should be
prepared to submit, upon request, any permits, surveys, or reports that support the status of
their environmental compliance. As part of the grant agreement, the grantee is required to
certify that it understands that it is the grantee’s responsible for complying with all federal,
State and local laws that apply to the project.
Applicants may include in their budgets the funding necessary for compliance related tasks;
however, awards for Category 2 projects cannot be finally approved until the required CEQA
documents have been completed and the necessary findings made. The Board may, within its
discretion, reserve funds for projects that have not yet completed their environmental review as
required by CEQA. However, a reservation of funds is not a guarantee of grant award. A
Category 1 grant may be proposed in order for an applicant to complete the CEQA process in
advance of submitting an application for a Category 2 project. Approval of grant funding for a
Category 1 project is not a guarantee of any future funding and the Conservancy retains full
discretion to approve or reject an associated Category 2 project application.
Proposals for projects that are subject to CEQA must identify the lead agency and explain how
the project will comply with CEQA. If the lead agency has not completed its CEQA process at the
time of application, the applicant shall indicate when it anticipates completing the CEQA
process. For most projects subject to CEQA, the Conservancy will serve as a responsible agency,
unless there is no other public agency responsible for carrying out or approving the project for
which the applicant seeks funding, in which case the Conservancy will serve as the lead agency.
The applicant must coordinate with the Conservancy prior to full proposal submission if the
Conservancy is anticipated to act as the lead agency for the project.
For proposed projects that include an action that is likely to be deemed a covered action,
pursuant to CWC Section 85057.5, the applicant is responsible for ensuring consistency with the
Delta Plan. The Conservancy encourages all applicants to communicate with the Delta
Stewardship Council to better understand whether or not their projects will need to certify their
consistency with the Delta Plan. For all Category 2 projects, a covered action checklist must be
submitted with the full proposal (see Appendix B: Key Local, State and Federal Plans and Tools
for more information) For those projects that will need to certify consistency, the proposal shall
include a description of how consistency will be achieved, and may include in its budget the
funding necessary to complete related tasks, including the development of an Adaptive
Management Plan. The project must be certified as consistent with the Delta Plan before funds
are disbursed for construction or the physical implementation of the project. The applicant must
coordinate with the Conservancy prior to proposal submission if the Conservancy is anticipated
to act as the covered action lead agency for the project.
E. Water Rights
Funded projects that address stream flows and water use shall comply with the CWC, as well as
any applicable State or federal laws or regulations. Any project that would require a change to
29
water rights, including, but not limited to, bypass flows, point of diversion, location of use,
purpose of use, or off-stream storage shall demonstrate in their grant proposal an
understanding of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) processes, timelines, and
costs necessary for project approvals by SWRCB and the ability to meet those timelines within
the funding term of a grant. In addition, any project that involves modification of water rights
for an adjudicated stream shall identify the required legal process for the change as well as
associated legal costs. Projects that propose to acquire a permanent dedication of water must
be in accordance with Section 1707 of the CWC; specifically the SWRCB must specify that the
water proposed for acquisition is in addition to the water that is needed to meet regulatory
requirements (Section 79709(a)). Applicants may apply for funding from the Conservancy to
complete the Section 1707 petition process, but SWRCB must approve the petition prior to the
dispersal of funds for any other project tasks. Prior to its completion, any water right acquisition
must be supported by a water rights appraisal approved by the Department of General Services,
Real Property Services Section.
It is the responsibility of the applicant to comply with SWRCB regulations regarding the
diversion and use of water, including ensuring that the applicant has adequate water rights to
complete the project and that the project will not reduce or otherwise affect the rights of other
water rights holders (Section 79711(d)). For Category 2 projects that require water application
(e.g., restoration, working lands enhancements, etc.), applicants must submit a statement or
application number for the water right they propose to use, as well as a short statement
demonstrating that the project’s water use has been considered, is reasonable, and that there is
sufficient water to implement and maintain the project without causing adverse impacts to
downstream users or surrounding landowners. Conservancy staff will consult with the office of
the Delta Watermaster regarding projects that propose to use water. The Delta Watermaster
will review the water rights affiliated with the proposed projects and will provide an informal
opinion as to whether or not these water rights appear to be subject to challenge. When
considering if a project should be recommended for funding, Conservancy staff will consider the
Watermaster’s input and any issues identified during internal review.
If applicable, applicants are strongly encouraged to provide a letter of support from the entity
providing water for a Category 2 implementation project. As a condition of the grant agreement,
if a grantee is not the water right holder and the landowner is the water rights holder, the
grantee must submit a landowner access agreement that includes a clause that specifically
grants the grantee the right to use water for the purposes of implementing the proposed project
(see Land Tenure section, below, for more information about the landowner access agreement:
page 3, paragraph 4 of the landowner access agreement template, found on the Conservancy’s
Grant Program web page, includes the water rights clause referenced here). If neither the
grantee nor the landowner is the water right holder, as a condition of the grant agreement, the
grantee must to submit a written statement from the water right holder that verifies that the
water right holder has the right to deliver water to the property on which the proposed project
will be implemented, and that the water rights holder recognizes its obligation to provide water
to that property for the purposes of implementing the proposed project. The Conservancy may
at any time request that an applicant or grantee provide additional proof that it has a legal right
to divert water and sufficient documentation regarding actual water availability and use.
30
F. Best Available Science
All proposals will be evaluated on the scientific basis of their project. Applicants must provide a
description of the scientific foundation of their project, including scientific literature, studies, or
expert opinion that they have consulted. Applicants must use the best available science when
planning and implementing their proposed projects. By using the best available science,
applicants maximize the chances of success for their project. Best available science should be:
• Relevant
• Inclusive
• Objective
• Transparent and Open
• Timely
• Peer reviewed
A more complete review of best available science can be found in Appendix 1A of the Delta Plan.
Applicants proposing ecosystem restoration and enhancement projects are encouraged to take
into account the landscape considerations and guidelines discussed in A Delta Renewed: A Guide
to Science-Based Ecological Restoration in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (A Delta Renewed,
SFEI-ASC, 2016) when determining appropriate habitat restoration or enhancement actions. All
applicants are encouraged to consult recent resources on climate change in California, which
include the following: California Natural Resources Agency’s Safeguarding California Plan: 2017
Update (particularly the Biodiversity and Habitat Section), Cal-Adapt (includes climate tools,
data, and resources), the California Climate Commons, Point Blue Conservation Science’s
Climate-Smart Restoration Toolkit, and the Ocean Protection Council’s 2017 Rising Seas in
California: An Update on Sea-Level Rise Science.
G. Adaptive Management
Adaptive management is a framework and flexible decision making process for ongoing
knowledge acquisition, monitoring, and evaluation leading to continuous improvements in
management planning and implementation of a project to achieve specified objectives. Adaptive
management provides for taking actions designed to achieve desired outcomes through an
iterative learning process that advances scientific understanding and increases the likelihood for
a project to achieve desired goals and objectives. Adaptive management acknowledges
uncertainty and promotes flexible decision making that can be adjusted in the face of
uncertainties as outcomes from management actions and other events, such as climate change,
become better understood. Long-term management is related to adaptive management, and
the two terms are frequently conflated. Adaptive management describes the scientific process
in which the entire project is embedded, whereas long-term management deals with the on-
going stewardship and maintenance of the site. All applicants are required to develop and utilize
science-based adaptive management that is consistent with the Delta Plan’s adaptive
management framework, found here:
http://deltacouncil.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/AppC_Adaptive%20Management
_2013.pdf.
31
Since the adaptive management approach should be integrated throughout the project, it will
be incorporated across many sections of the proposal. Applicants will be asked to summarize
their approach to adaptive management in the Scientific Merit section of the full proposal.
1. Define/redefine problem. The problem/need for the project should be stated in the
project description.
2. Establish goals and objectives. Goals and objectives should be discussed in the project
description, and be included in the Performance Measures Table for Category 2
projects.
3. Model linkages between objectives and proposed actions. Linking goals and objectives
to conceptual and other models is a critical component of establishing the project’s
scientific merit. Models link the objectives to the proposed action and clarify why an
intended action is expected to result in meeting its objectives. This should be described
in the section on scientific basis.
4. Select action(s) and develop performance measures. The project description describes
the actions that will be completed, and, for Category 2 projects, the Performance
Measures Table captures the project’s performance measures.
5. Design and implement action(s). The project description should describe how selected
actions will be designed and implemented.
6. Design and implement monitoring plan. For Category 2 projects, the performance
monitoring and assessment framework should describe how actions will be monitored.
7. Analyze, synthesize, and evaluate. For Category 2 projects, the performance monitoring
and assessment framework should describe how results will be analyzed, synthesized,
and evaluated.
8. Communicate current understanding. For Category 2 projects, the performance
monitoring and assessment framework should describe how results will be
communicated to decision-makers, and more broadly.
9. Adapt. All projects, when explaining their adaptive management approach, should
address how institutional support, decision-making mechanisms, and governance
structures will allow adaptive management to be carried out by making changes to the
project or extracting and applying learning from the project to future projects.
Depending on the status and type of project being proposed, adaptive management
expectations will vary. Category 1 projects may not have all nine steps fully fleshed out, but are
expected to describe how they will be considered and incorporated as the project progresses.
Conservation easement projects must describe the application of an adaptive management
framework, but may not have much leeway to alter easement terms. Projects that employ well-
established best management practices do not carry the same burden of proof as those
attempting new, untested approaches.
All Category 2 projects that include an action that is likely to be deemed a covered action,
pursuant to CWC Section 85057.5, are responsible for ensuring consistency with the Delta Plan,
which includes developing a formal Adaptive Management Plan. The Conservancy encourages
all applicants to communicate with the Delta Stewardship Council to learn more about adaptive
management and to better understand whether or not their projects are potential covered
actions and will need to certify their consistency with the Delta Plan. For those projects that will
need to certify consistency, the proposal shall include a description of how consistency will be
achieved, and may include in its budget the funding necessary to complete related tasks,
including the development of an Adaptive Management Plan. Grantees must complete the self-
32
certification process and demonstrate consistency with the Delta Plan before funds are
disbursed for construction or the physical implementation of the project.
A. Performance Monitoring and Assessment
All Category 2 project proposals (including those for acquisition projects) must describe a
performance monitoring and assessment framework that identifies the performance measures
that will be used to demonstrate the ecosystem and/or watershed benefits of the project, how
they will be monitored and assessed, and how monitoring data will be reported. The
performance monitoring and assessment framework will vary depending on the scope and
nature of the project. A performance monitoring and assessment framework is not required for
Category 1 projects. Performance of Category 1 projects will be evaluated based on completion
of project deliverables per the grant agreement. For projects deemed covered actions under the
Delta Plan, performance monitoring and assessment will be a component of the Adaptive
Management Plan required as part of the process of certifying consistency with the Delta Plan.
The Conservancy reserves the right to negotiate specific terms and conditions for performance
monitoring and assessment prior to grant execution to ensure appropriate methods and
measures are identified, and to assist with consistency of nomenclature, units, and
measurements. Applicants may include finalizing a performance monitoring and assessment
plan as an expense reimbursable by the grant.
Performance Measures
A key attribute of the performance monitoring and assessment framework is the development
of project-specific performance measures. Performance measures must be designed so the
Conservancy can ensure that projects achieve outputs, are on-track to meet their intended
objectives, and provide value to the State of California.
Applicants for Category 2 projects must prepare and submit a Performance Measures Table,
specific to their proposed project, as part of the full proposal. A template for will be available on
the Conservancy’s Grant Program web page. The focus should be on performance measures that
demonstrate ecosystem and watershed benefits. Administrative tasks (such as completion of
progress reports, invoices, or other financial or contractual tasks) should not be included.
Developing a Performance Measures Table can be a challenging process. Draft tables are
required as a component of the concept proposal so that the Conservancy can guide applicants
in preparing their final Performance Measures Table for the full proposal. Applicants are
encouraged to contact Conservancy staff to discuss performance measures prior to submitting a
concept proposal.
The Performance Measures Table requires applicants to align their project objectives with
measurable outputs and outcomes. For the purposes of this Grant Program, goals, objectives,
outputs, and outcomes are defined using the Delta Plan’s definitions included in Appendix C:
Adaptive Management and the Delta Plan (see page 9 for more information about developing
performance measures). The italicized text below provides explanation beyond the Delta Plan
definitions.
• Goals - Broad statements that propose general solutions.
33
• Objectives - More specific than goals, and often quantitative, specific, narrative
statements of desired outcomes, allowing evaluation of how well the objectives are
being achieved.
• Outputs - Performance measures that evaluate factors that may be influencing
outcomes and include on-the-ground implementation and management actions. Output
performance measures track whether on-the-ground activities were completed
successfully and evaluate factors that may be influencing ecosystem outcomes (e.g.,
acres of ecosystem restored or preserved, number of trees planted, and number of
barriers to fish migration removed). Project outputs are the things that will be produced
as a result of working toward your objective.
• Outcomes - Performance measures that evaluate ecosystem responses to management
actions or natural outputs. These are the benefits or long-term changes that are sought
from undertaking the project. Outcome performance measures evaluate direct
ecosystem responses to project activities (e.g., responses by target wildlife populations,
and responses in ecosystem function). They are achieved from the utilization of the
project’s outputs. Outcomes are linked with objectives, in that if the outcomes are
achieved then the project’s objective(s) have been met. At the end of the project, the
outcomes will help answer questions such as, ‘what have we achieved?’ and ‘how do we
know?’.
The Delta Conservancy has identified a suite of standard performance measures intended to
measure the ecosystem and/or watershed benefits of a project. Applicants are required to
utilize these performance measures to the extent that they are reasonably applicable to the
project proposed, and are encouraged to discuss selection with Conservancy staff during the
preparation of concept proposals. The list of standard performance measures is not exhaustive.
Additional project-specific outputs and outcomes may be required to meet the project
objectives. If a project is likely to be deemed a covered action under the Delta Plan, the
applicant should also consider the applicability of incorporating Delta Plan performance
measures. All projects as applicable will be required to define their outputs in terms of the
ecosystem/land use types included in Appendix D: Ecosystem and Land Use Types.
Outputs:
1. Increased acres or linear feet of ecosystem/land use type protected, restored, or enhanced
2. Increased acres or linear feet with a best management practice implemented (identify by
type of best management practice)
3. Increased acres or linear feet of invasive species treated
4. Increased acre-feet of water protected or conserved per year to increase flow in periods of
limited water supply
5. Increased metric tons of carbon sequestered per year
6. Increased acre-feet of contaminated runoff treated or retained on-site
7. Reduced concentrations and/or loading of point source pollutants (such as from municipal
stormwater) into associated waterbody or into offsite discharge
34
8. Reduced concentrations and/or loading of non-point source pollutants such as sediment,
pesticides, bio-stimulatory substances (inorganic nutrients such as including ammonium,
nitrate, and phosphate) or other pollutants into associated waterbody or into offsite
discharge
Outcomes:
1. Increased use/occurrence of native animal species at restored/enhanced project site
2. Maintained use/occurrence of native animal species at protected project site
3. Increased ratio of native to nonnative plant species at restored/enhanced project site
4. Increased abundance of desirable aquatic macro-invertebrates at project site
5. Increased desirable primary productivity at project site
6. Increased water supply to associated waterbody or for groundwater recharge
7. Increased use/occurrence of native fish species in associated waterbody
8. Increase in dissolved oxygen concentrations in associated waterbody
9. Reduced toxicity2 of water or sediment in associated waterbody
10. Improvement in other water quality conditions (such as decreased water temperature) in
associated waterbody
Monitoring and Assessment Framework
In addition to identifying performance measures, applicants must describe their approach to
monitoring and assessing performance.
The monitoring and assessment framework should answer the following questions:
• Why is monitoring being done? What is being monitored? Provide linkage to outcomes
and outputs and relevant conceptual models.
• Who will be conducting the monitoring? Provide linkage to project team experience.
• How will monitoring be conducted? Describe the methods that will be used and how
they relate to existing methods, particularly standardized State monitoring programs,
existing monitoring at similar sites, and requirements based on relevant permits.
Describe quality assurance/quality control procedures.
• When will monitoring occur? Describe the timing, frequency, and duration of
monitoring. For example, will monitoring occur prior to and at a certain frequency after
activities occur? Are there constraints on when particular monitoring/surveys need to
occur (e.g., relative to particular tasks or seasons)? Describe opportunities to extend
monitoring beyond the Grant Funding Term (e.g., by using standardized, readily
replicated monitoring and evaluation processes; leveraging on-going monitoring
programs; and building partnerships capable of attracting funding from multiple sources
over time).
• Where will monitoring occur? Will monitoring occur at multiple sites within the
footprint of the activity as well as similar or adjacent sites outside?
• Who will manage the data? Provide linkage to project team experience.
• What types of data will be created?
2 Evaluated with toxicity testing using standard methods approved by the USEPA for fish, invertebrates, or algae
and/or SWRCB for sediment and benthic invertebrates (as appropriate).
35
• How will data be analyzed, synthesized, and evaluated?
• How will data be accessed and shared?
• When will data be available? At what point will the data be provided to statewide data
systems and how often will it be updated? How long will be data be saved?
• Where will the data be stored and shared? Ecosystem and watershed project data shall
be uploaded to EcoAtlas Project Tracker; see below for additional sites for standardized
data reporting.
• How will results be communicated?
Standardized Methods and Centralized Data Management
Applicants should incorporate standardized monitoring approaches, where applicable, into their
monitoring and assessment frameworks and evaluate opportunities to coordinate with existing
monitoring efforts or produce information that can readily be integrated into such efforts. If an
applicant determines that the use of standardized approaches is not appropriate, the proposal
must provide a clear justification and a description of the proposed approach. Types of
standardized methods and related data portals include:
• Water quality, toxicity, and bioassessment data: Surface Water Ambient Monitoring
Program (SWAMP) for standardized methods and data collection, California
Environmental Data Exchange Network (CEDEN) for data reporting
• Coastal salmonids: California Coastal Monitoring Program for both methods and
reporting
• Wetland and riparian restoration: Wetland and Riparian Area Monitoring Program
(WRAMP) framework for data collection, EcoAtlas for data reporting
Grantees will be required to add their project into EcoAtlas Project Tracker and provide periodic
updates. For the purpose of this requirement, examples of project information include project
proponent, project name, location (e.g., latitude/longitude, project boundary), pertinent dates
(e.g., site construction), activity type (e.g., restoration), and ecosystem type and amount. For
additional information, refer to the “Project Tracker” online tool on the EcoAtlas website.
Environmental data and information collected under the Conservancy’s Proposition 1 Grant
Program must be made visible, accessible, and independently understandable to general users
in a timely manner, except where limited by law, regulation, policy, or security requirements.
Unless otherwise stipulated, all data collected and created is a required deliverable and will
become the property of the Conservancy.
B. Long-Term Management
The goal of long-term management is to foster the ongoing success of the project and viability
of the site’s natural resources, ensuring that the benefits arising from the project endure
beyond the end of the Grant Funding Term. Applicants submitting full proposals for Category 2
projects must describe future land management activities beyond the three-year Grant Funding
Term, explaining how the project will be stewarded for at least 15 years per the requirement for
capital outlay projects as specified in the State General Obligation Bond Law. Applicants must
identify possible risks to the project’s benefits, and describe long-term management activities
designed to abate these risks, including who will manage the project, how the project will be
maintained, how management and maintenance will be funded, and how long-term
36
management will be integrated into the project’s adaptive management. Long-term
management deals with the on-going stewardship and maintenance of the site, whereas
adaptive management describes the scientific process in which the entire project is embedded.
The process for collecting and analyzing science-based information – a critical component of
adaptive management – should be a factor in long-term management planning and decisions.
Properties restored, enhanced, or protected, and facilities constructed or enhanced with funds
provided by the Conservancy shall be operated, used, and maintained consistent with the
purposes of the grant.
C. Land Tenure
For all projects conducted on land that is not owned by the grantee, the grantee must
demonstrate that they have adequate site control prior to the disbursement of grant funds. At
the time of application, all projects that require site access must describe the current status of
site control. Once funds are awarded, Category 2 projects must submit documentation showing
that they have adequate tenure to, and site control of, the properties to be improved or
restored, including adequate control for maintenance of the project for a minimum of 15 years.
Grantees may assign without novation the responsibility to implement, monitor, and maintain a
project. If the grantee owns the land on which the project is being implemented, the grant
agreement will be recorded against the deed of the property. If the grantee does not own the
land on which the project will be implemented, a landowner access agreement will be required
as a condition of the grant agreement and must be executed and recorded before funds are
disbursed. The landowner access agreement must be signed by the grantee and the landowner,
and must include a legal description of the land on which the project is being implemented; the
Conservancy will approve as to form. A landowner access agreement template can be found on
the Conservancy’s Grant Program web page. Grantees opting not to use the template must
submit an alternate agreement that conforms to the terms of the template. Costs associated
with the development of the land tenure agreement can be included in the project budget, but
cannot be reimbursed until the landowner access agreement is approved as to form by the
Conservancy. For lands being acquired with Conservancy funds, the Land Acquisitions section,
below, describes land tenure requirements.
D. Land Acquisitions
The Conservancy may award funds for a land acquisition project. Acquisition projects must
adhere to the following requirements:
• Property must be acquired from a willing seller and in compliance with current laws
governing acquisition of real property by public agencies 3 in an amount not to exceed
fair market value, as approved by the State.
• If a signed purchase and sale or option agreement is unavailable to be submitted with
the application, a Willing Seller Letter is required from each landowner indicating they
are a willing participant in the proposed real estate transaction. The letter should clearly
identify the parcels to be purchased and state that “if grant funds are awarded, the
seller is willing to enter into negotiations for sale of the property at a purchase price not
to exceed fair market value.”
3 Government Code, Chapter 16, Section 7260 et seq.
37
• Once funds are awarded and an agreement is signed with the Conservancy, another
property cannot be substituted for the property specified in the application. Therefore it
is imperative that the applicant demonstrate that the seller is negotiating in good faith,
and that discussions have proceeded to a point of confidence.
• Department of General Services must review and approve all appraisals of real property.
Appraisals must be in compliance with section 5096.510 of the Public Resources Code.
Acquisition projects are also subject to a specific set of additional requirements that must be
met prior to and immediately after closing escrow. For more information, please refer to the
checklist provided in Appendix E: Land Acquisition Checklist. Note that the Conservancy will do
an assessment of mineral rights based on information provided by the applicant. Based on its
assessment, the Conservancy will determine whether the risk posed by exercising existing
mineral rights and the related consequences for intended conservation purposes is acceptable
to the Conservancy. If the Conservancy determines that the risk is not acceptable and the risk
cannot be reduced to an acceptable level within a reasonable amount of time, then the
Conservancy may rescind the grant award.
In addition to the purchase of real property, acquisition projects may seek reimbursement for
costs associated with personnel time, appraisal and appraisal review, due diligence costs, closing
costs, and other costs related to the acquisition of real property. The Conservancy will not
directly pay the Department of General Services (DGS) to review and approve the required
appraisal; the grantee must pay DGS directly for this expense and seek reimbursement from the
Conservancy. In total, appraisal and appraisal review, personnel time, due diligence costs,
closing costs, and other costs related to the acquisition of real property may not exceed ten
percent of the land acquisition cost that is being requested from the Conservancy. Note that the
land acquisition cost may not be factored into the indirect cost calculation. Funding will be
dispersed quarterly in arears for all costs save for the land acquisition cost, for which funds will
be transferred into escrow once all requirements have been met as specified in Appendix E:
Land Acquisition Checklist.
Acquisition projects must address all other requirements of Category 2 projects, including the
development of scientific outputs and outcomes and a performance monitoring and assessment
framework. The following additional information is required at the time of application:
• A table including: parcel numbers, acreage, willing seller name and address, breakdown
of how the funds will be budgeted, and an acquisition schedule (the Conservancy will
provide an Acquisition Table template on its Grant Program web page)
• Copy of the Purchase and Sale or Option Agreement, or Willing Seller Letter(s)
• Appraisal or Estimation of Fair Market Value
• Map showing lands that will be acquired, including parcel lines and numbers
Proposals for acquisition of real property must also address the following, as required by section
32364.5(b) of the Conservancy’s enabling legislation:
• The intended use of the property.
• The manner in which the land will be managed.
38
• How the cost of ongoing operations, maintenance, and management will be provided,
including an analysis of the maintaining entity’s financial capacity to support those
ongoing costs.
• How payments will be provided in lieu of taxes, assessments, or charges otherwise due
to local government, if applicable.
NOTE: Any grantee acquiring land with Proposition 1 grant funding may be eligible to use the
Natural Heritage Preservation Tax Credit Act of 2000 (Division 28 (commencing with Section
37000) of the Public Resources Code) (Section 79711[h]). Interested applicants should consult a
tax advisor.
E. Budget Tables
Using the Budget Tables provided with the full proposal application materials, all applicants
must identify all project expenses for which Conservancy funds are being requested. Budget
Tables include the concept proposal Budget Table template and the following full proposal
attachments: Line Item Budget by Task and Funding by Source. All expenses must be eligible,
and must conform to the following cost categories in the Conservancy’s line item budget:
• Personnel Services. Personnel rates may only include salary and wages, fringe benefits,
and payroll taxes. Compensation for personnel services includes all compensation paid
by the organization for services of employees working directly on the project during the
Grant Funding Term. The expenditures are allowable to the extent that the total
compensation for individual employees is reasonable for the services rendered and
supported. Fringe benefit expenses may include holidays, vacation, sick leave, actual
employer contributions or expenses for social security, employee insurance, workmen's
compensation insurance, and pension plan costs. During invoicing, grantees must
provide timesheets to the Conservancy to verify the staff time charged is authorized
under the grant agreement.
• Operating Expenses (General). General Operating Expenses include all materials,
supplies, such as field supplies, office supplies, permits and fees, travel expenses, and
other general expenses required to directly implement the project. All costs should be
allocated according to the most equitable basis practical. During invoicing, all expenses
must be supported by receipts.
• Operating Expenses (Subcontractor). Subcontractor expenditures including equipment
rentals are allowable if work to be completed or services to be provided are directly
linked to the proposed project and are consistent with the tasks and schedule provided
in the proposal. Grantees will be expected to provide copies of all contracts to the
Conservancy for review. Note that subcontractor expenses may not be factored into the
indirect cost calculation.
• Operating Expenses (Equipment). Equipment includes nonexpendable, tangible
personal property having a useful life of more than one year and a cost which equals or
exceeds the lesser of the capitalization level established for a financial statement
purpose or $5,000. Equipment purchases are allowable if specified as a requirement for
the completion of the project. Justification for the purchase of equipment must be
provided. Grantees must keep an inventory record including the date acquired, total
cost, serial number, model identification, and any other information or description
39
necessary to identify said equipment must be maintained for the duration of the Grant
Funding Term. Note that equipment expenses may not be factored into the indirect cost
calculation.
• Acquisition Cost. The acquisition cost includes only the purchase of real property. In
total, appraisal and appraisal review, personnel time, due diligence costs, closing costs,
and other costs related to the acquisition of real property may not exceed ten percent
of the acquisition cost that is being requested from the Conservancy. Note that the
acquisition cost may not be factored into the indirect cost calculation.
• Indirect Costs. Indirect costs that do not have a specific direct relationship to the project
but are a requirement for the completion of the project may be eligible for
reimbursement. Indirect costs are capped at a rate of 20 percent of the Personnel
Services and Operating Expenses (General) line items. To determine the amount of
eligible indirect costs, the applicant must first determine the cost of implementing the
project, not including any indirect costs. Once the project implementation cost has been
determined, the applicant may calculate indirect costs and include them in the total
grant request up to the allowable 20 percent cap on the specified line items. Indirect
costs may not be applied to subcontractor or equipment line items, nor to land
acquisition costs. Indirect costs must be reasonable, allocable, and applicable and may
include administrative support (e.g., personnel time for accounting, legal, executive,
information technology, or other staff who support the implementation of the proposed
project but who are not directly billing their time to the project), and office-related
expenses (e.g., insurance, rent, utilities, printing/copying equipment, computer
equipment, and janitorial expenses). These costs are subject to audit and must be
documented by the grantee. Indirect costs may not be included in the hourly rate for
personnel billing directly to the grant. Indirect rates are strictly enforced for all
applicants.
Budget Tables should include costs for the tasks described in the full proposal and must
demonstrate how grant management and reporting costs will be funded, either by the
Conservancy’s Grant Program or using cost share or State leveraged funds. Applicants are
encouraged to review other Conservancy Grant Program requirements that may be eligible for
Conservancy grant funding (e.g., Delta Plan consistency, developing a landowner access
agreement, etc.; see Appendix C: Proposal Requirements Checklist for more information) and
include these in their budgets where applicable.
Applicants must also identify cost share contributions if receiving funding for the project from a
source other than the Conservancy.
F. Cost Share and State-Leveraged Funds
The Conservancy’s grant program does not have a formal match requirement; however,
applicants are encouraged to develop a cost share program to support their project. Cost
sharing is the portion of the project expense not borne by the Conservancy’s grant monies. Cost
sharing encourages collaboration and cooperation. The Conservancy will provide points to
proposals with a federal, local, or private cost share component (other State funds may not
count toward the cost share). Only cost share commitments made explicitly for the project may
count toward the cost percentage for purposes of evaluation and scoring of proposals.
Applicants stating that they have a cost share component must include commitment letters
from cost share partners at the time the full proposal is submitted; these letters must
40
specifically confirm the dollar amount committed. Cost share funds must be spent between the
time that the full proposal is submitted to the Conservancy and the end of the Grant Funding
Term.
In-kind cost share is defined as all non-cash contributions to the project with an assigned value,
and may include volunteer time, supplies, and equipment. Up to 50 percent of a cost share may
be in-kind, meaning all in-kind cost share must be matched with cash at a one-to-one ratio. For
example, if a project has $25,000 of cash cost share, the maximum qualifying in-kind cost share
is $25,000. Points would not be awarded for any in-kind cost share that exceeds $25,000. For
projects without any cash match, in-kind cost share will not be calculated into the project’s cost
share score. Points are awarded based on cost share percent (see Evaluation Criteria for Full
Proposal for more information) which is calculated by dividing the total eligible cost share (only
that from federal, local, or private sources, with all in-kind matched one-to-one with cash) by
the total dollar amount requested from the Conservancy.
The Conservancy will also provide up to three points for proposals that leverage State funds for
multibenefit projects. These projects must support multiple objectives as identified in various
planning documents (see Appendix B: Key State, Federal, and Local Plans and Tools). State funds
may not count toward the cost share. Applicants stating that they are leveraging other State
funds must include commitment letters from leverage partners when submitting the full
proposal, and cost share funds must be spent between the time that proposals are submitted to
the Conservancy and the end of the Grant Funding Term. The same cash to in-kind ratio applies,
and points are calculated as noted above.
G. Financial Management Systems Questionnaire and Cost Allocation Plan
A Financial Management Systems Questionnaire and Cost Allocation Plan form is required from
all applicants at the time of full proposal (a template will be provided on the Grant Program web
page). The information provided will be used to assess the applicant’s financial capacity for
managing the proposed grant. The Financial Management Systems Questionnaire must be
signed and dated and requires the applicant to provide the following information:
• Organizational Data
• Financial Audit Data
• Financial Statement
• Accounting System Data
• Timekeeping System Data
• Purchasing System
The Cost Allocation Plan should be tailored to fit the specific policies of the applicant. The plan
requires information about how the applicant allocates costs to ensure an equitable distribution
of costs to programs. Recipients must have a system in place to equitably charge costs.
H. Consultation and Cooperation with State and Local Agencies and
Demonstration of Local Support
It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact, seek support from, and coordinate with applicable
State agencies, cities, counties, and local districts, as well as other private stakeholders and
41
surrounding landowners. Letters of support can be included with the full proposal. If an
applicant has a project-specific resolution of support from the affected city, county, or local
district, it should be included with the full proposal in order to facilitate the overall assessment
process. A resolution of support from the Board of Supervisors from the county in which the
project is located is a component of the full proposal.
In compliance with the Conservancy’s governing statute (Public Resources Code Section 32363)
and Proposition 1, the Conservancy will notify local government agencies – such as counties,
cities, and local districts – about eligible grant projects being considered for funding in their
area. Conservancy staff will also notify the applicable public water agency, levee, flood control,
or drainage agency (when appropriate). The individual Conservancy Board members
representing each of the five Delta counties will also be notified at this time and may wish to
communicate with the affected entities. The Conservancy will request comments from all
entities within 15 business days following notification. For acquisition projects, the Conservancy
shall coordinate and consult with the Delta Protection Commission and the city or county in
which a grant is proposed to be implemented or an interest in real property is proposed to be
acquired. The Conservancy will work with the grantee to make all reasonable efforts to address
concerns raised by local governments.
The Conservancy will also coordinate with the appropriate departments in State government
that are doing work in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, including the Central Valley Flood
Protection Board. In particular, the Conservancy will work with California Department of Fish
and Wildlife (CDFW) Proposition 1 program staff to coordinate funding requests. If the
Conservancy and CDFW are co-funding a project, the agencies will work to ensure that each
funder has a discreet scope of work, and that the project is managed as two distinct grant
agreements. Each agency will be required to report on the specific metrics of the project it is
funding in order to ensure that funds are being managed in the best interest of the State. The
Conservancy strongly encourages applicants to reach out to both agencies prior to applying for
funding to discuss options for funding projects. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure
that proposals submitted to both the Conservancy and to CDFW clearly describe the work that
will be funded by each agency. The proposed scope of each proposal should be distinct and
without overlap. Applicants must describe the overall project and how the proposals relate.
I. Disadvantaged Communities
Proposition 1 does not require that the Conservancy direct a specific portion of funding to
projects that benefit disadvantaged communities (less than 80 percent of the State's median
household income based on U.S. Census). However, a large majority of the communities found
within the Delta are considered disadvantaged communities according to the U.S. Census, as are
many of the communities immediately outside of the Delta. Any Proposition 1 funds spent on
improving aspects of the Delta will very likely have some benefit to one or more disadvantaged
communities. Applicants must identify any disadvantaged communities that overlap with the
footprint of the proposed project, which disadvantaged communities occur within one mile of
the footprint, and which disadvantaged communities occur within five miles of the project
footprint. Refer to the Disadvantaged Communities Mapping Tool found at:
http://www.water.ca.gov/irwm/grants/resources_dac.cfm.
42
Requirements if Funded
A. Grant Provisions
For each awarded grant, the Conservancy will develop an individual grant agreement with
detailed provisions and requirements specific to that project. A draft grant agreement template
is provided on the Conservancy’s Grant Program web page. Please be aware that if you receive a
grant from the Conservancy, the provisions listed below will apply:
• Actual awards are conditional upon funds being available from the State (see Loss of
Funding section, below).
• Eligible expenses incurred upon the start date listed in the grant agreement and prior to
the end of the Grant Funding Term may be directly reimbursed. Grant eligible costs will
only be paid in arears on a reimbursement basis, require supporting documentation,
and may be subject to audit (see Appendix F: State Auditing Requirements).
• For all Category 2 projects, adequate proof of land tenure allowing the grantee to access
property to construct and maintain the proposed project must be in place prior to the
disbursement of funds.
• For Category 2 projects, funds for construction will not be disbursed until all of the
required environmental compliance and permitting documents have been received by
the Conservancy, including certification of consistency with the Delta Plan.
• Grantees will not be reimbursed if any of the following conditions occur:
o the applicant has been non-responsive or does not meet the conditions outlined
in the grant proposal and grant agreement;
o the project has received alternative funding from other sources that duplicates
the portion or work or costs funded by a Conservancy grant;
o the project description has changed and is no longer eligible for funding; or
o the applicant requests to end the project.
B. Loss of Funding
Work performed under the grant agreement is subject to availability of funds through the
State's budget process. If funding for the grant agreement is reduced, eliminated, or delayed by
the Budget Act or through other budget control actions, the Conservancy shall have the option
to cancel the grant agreement, offer to the Grantee a grant agreement amendment reflecting a
reduced amount, or suspend work. In the event of cancellation of the grant agreement or
suspension of work, the Conservancy shall provide written notice to the grantee and be liable
only for payment for any work completed pursuant to the grant agreement up to the date of the
written notice. The Conservancy shall have no liability for payment for work carried out or
undertaken after the date of written notice of cancellation or suspension. In the event of a
suspension of work, the Conservancy may remove the suspension of work by written notice to
the Grantee. The Conservancy shall be liable for payment for work completed from the date of
written notice of the removal of the suspension of work, consistent with other terms of the
grant agreement. In no event shall the Conservancy be liable to the grantee for any costs or
damages associated with any period of suspension, nor shall the Conservancy be liable for any
costs in the event that, after a suspension, no funds are available and the grant agreement is
then cancelled based on budget actions.
43
C. Labor Code Compliance
Grants awarded through the Conservancy’s Ecosystem Restoration and Water Quality Grant
Program may be subject to prevailing wage provisions of Part 7 of Division 2 of the California
Labor Code (CLC), commencing with Section 1720. Typically, the types of projects that are
subject to the prevailing wage requirements are public works projects. Existing law defines
"public works" as, among other things, construction, alteration, demolition, installation, or
repair work done under contract and paid for in whole or in part out of public funds. Any work
performed by volunteers is not subject to prevailing wage provisions per California Labor Code
(CLC) Section 1720.4, which shall remain in effect until January 1, 2024.
The grantee shall pay prevailing wage to all persons employed in the performance of any part of
the project if required by law to do so. Any questions of interpretation regarding the CLC should
be directed to the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR), the State
department having jurisdiction in these matters. For more details, please refer to the DIR
website at http://www.dir.ca.gov.
D. Reporting
All projects will be required to provide quarterly progress reports during the Grant Funding
Term and a final report prior to the formal close-out of the Grant Funding Term. Specific
reporting requirements will be included in the grant agreement. Among other requirements, all
reports will include an evaluation of project performance that links to the project’s performance
measures. The final report will include, among other things, a discussion of findings, conclusions,
or recommendations for follow-up, ongoing, or future activities.
E. Signage and Recognition
To the extent practicable, grantees shall inform the public that the project received funds
through the Delta Conservancy and from the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure
Improvement Act of 2014 (CWC §79707[g]). Grantees shall recognize the Conservancy on signs,
websites, press or promotional materials, advertisements, publications, or exhibits that they
prepare or approve and that reference funding of a project. For Category 2 projects, grantees
shall post signs at the project site acknowledging the source of the funds. Size, location and
number of signs shall be approved by the Conservancy. Required signage must be in place prior
to final distribution of grant funds.
44
Appendices
Appendix A: Glossary of Terms
Adaptive Management – A framework and flexible decision making process for ongoing knowledge
acquisition, monitoring, and evaluation leading to continuous improvements in management planning
and implementation of a project to achieve specified objectives. For more information, refer to
http://deltacouncil.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/AppC_Adaptive%20Management_2013.p
df.
Application – The individual application form and its required attachments and supplementary materials
for grants pursuant to the Delta Conservancy’s Proposition 1 Ecosystem Restoration and Water Quality
Grant Program.
Best Available Science – Science with the following elements: (a) well-stated objectives; (b) a clear
conceptual or mathematical model; (c) a good experimental design with standardized methods for data
collection; (d) statistical rigor and sound logic for analysis and interpretation; and (e) clear
documentation of methods, results, and conclusions. For more information, refer to
http://deltacouncil.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/AppC_Adaptive%20Management_2013.p
df.
Best Practices – A best practice is a method or technique that has consistently shown results superior to
those achieved with other means, can be used as a benchmark or standard, and is widely recognized as
the most efficient and effective way to accomplish a desired outcome. A best practice is used to
describe the process of developing and following a standard way of doing things that multiple
organizations can use.
CEQA – The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is set forth in the Public Resources Code
Section 21000 et seq. CEQA is a law establishing policies and procedures that require agencies to
identify, disclose to decision makers and the public, and attempt to lessen significant impacts to
environmental and historical resources that may occur as a result of a proposed project to be
undertaken, funded, or approved by a local or State agency. For more information, refer to:
http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa.
Conservancy – See Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy.
Cost Share – The portion of the project borne by private, federal, or local funds that will supplement the
Conservancy’s Proposition 1 funding.
Disadvantaged Community – Community with less than 80 percent of the State's median household
income based on U.S. Census. See Disadvantaged Communities Mapping Tool at:
http://www.water.ca.gov/irwm/grants/resources_dac.cfm.
Ecosystem Function - An intrinsic ecosystem characteristic whereby an ecosystem maintains its integrity.
Ecosystem processes include decomposition, production, nutrient cycling, and fluxes of nutrients and
energy.
Eligible Expenses – Approved expenses incurred by the grantee between the time that the full proposal
is submitted to the Conservancy and the end of the Grant Funding Term.
45
Enhancement - Actions that improve existing ecosystems with the goal of returning natural or historic
functions and characteristics.
Grant – Funds made available to a grantee for eligible costs during a Grant Funding Term.
Grant Agreement – An agreement between the Conservancy and the grantee specifying the payment of
funds by the Conservancy for the performance of the project scope within the specific performance
period.
Grant Funding Term - The time period, not to exceed three years, during which grantees may incur and
be reimbursed for grant-related expenses.
Grant Term - The 15-year time period during which Category 2 projects must be maintained to comply
with the State General Obligation Bond Law.
Indirect Costs – Indirect costs include expenses which do not relate directly to project implementation,
but are a requirement for the completion of the project. Indirect costs must be reasonable, allocable,
and applicable and may include administrative support (e.g., personnel time for accounting, legal,
executive, information technology, or other staff who support the implementation of the proposed
project but who are not directly billing their time to the project), and office-related expenses (e.g.,
insurance, rent, utilities, printing/copying equipment, computer equipment, and janitorial expenses).
In-kind Contributions –Non-cash contributions to the project with an assigned value, and may include
volunteer time, supplies, and equipment.
Lead Agency – The public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a
project under CEQA (see http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/art20.html).
Long-term Management – The ongoing stewardship of a project site that fosters the success of the
project and viability of the site’s natural resources, ensuring that the benefits arising from the project
endure for at least 15 years per the requirement for capital outlay projects as specified in the State
General Obligation Bond Law.
Monitoring Activities – The collection and analysis of observations or data repeated over time and in
relation to a conservation or management objective.
NEPA – The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to assess the
environmental effects of their proposed actions prior to making decisions. Using the NEPA process,
agencies evaluate the environmental and related social and economic effects of their proposed actions.
Agencies also provide opportunities for public review and comment on those evaluations. For more
information, refer to: https://www.epa.gov/nepa/what-national-environmental-policy-act.
Nonprofit Organization – A private, nonprofit organization that qualifies for exempt status under Section
501(c)(3) of Title 26 of the United States Code, and whose charitable purposes are consistent with those
of the Conservancy as set forth in Public Resources Code Section 32320 et seq.
Outcomes – Performance measures that evaluate ecosystem responses to management actions or
natural outputs. These are the benefits or long-term changes that are sought from undertaking the
project. Outcome performance measures evaluate direct ecosystem responses to project activities (e.g.,
responses by target wildlife populations, and responses in ecosystem function). They are achieved from
the utilization of the project’s outputs. Outcomes are linked with objectives, in that if the outcomes are
46
achieved then the project’s objective(s) have been met. At the end of the project, the outcomes will
help answer questions such as, ‘what have we achieved?’ and ‘how do we know?”.
Outputs - Performance measures that evaluate factors that may be influencing outcomes and include
on-the-ground implementation and management actions. Output performance measures track whether
on-the-ground activities were completed successfully and evaluate factors that may be influencing
ecosystem outcomes (e.g., acres of ecosystem restored or preserved, number of trees planted, and
number of barriers to fish migration removed). Project outputs are the things that will be produced as a
result of working toward your objective.
Performance Measure – Metrics used to ensure that projects are on-track to meet their intended
objectives and provide value to the State of California.
Planning Activities – Pre-project activities necessary for a specific on-the-ground project that meets the
Conservancy’s Grant Program eligibility criteria.
Pollutant – As defined in Clean Water Act Sec. 502(6), a pollutant means dredged spoil, solid waste,
incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials,
radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt, and industrial,
municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water.
Project Engineering Design –A process of creating the design for a project. The process consists of
several phases that relate to the percentage of development of the design plans. The naming
convention for these phases may vary, depending on the agency or locality, but generally the process
includes components similar to what is described below.
• Project Engineering Design: Conceptual Plans – Conceptual plans, along with the Basis of
Design Report, should indicate the general location of any activities and project elements,
show overall layout of the project location, and identify any constraints. Conceptual plans
are insufficient for submittal for Category 2 project funding.
• Project Engineering Design: The Basis of Design Report – The Basis of Design Report, along
with the Conceptual Plans, should demonstrate that the project is feasible and reflect a
preferred alternative. Alternatives analysis often compares a number of concept level plans.
Basis of Design Reports are insufficient for submittal for Category 2 project funding.
• Project Engineering Design: Intermediate Plans (or 65% plans) – The Intermediate Plans
should show detailed plan views and profiles of any improvements and standard details.
Individuals reviewing Intermediate Plans should be able to interpret exactly where the
project will be built and where project impacts will occur. A Basis of Design Report should be
included. Intermediate Plans (65%) is the minimum level of planning required to apply for
Category 2 funds.
• Project Engineering Design: Draft Plans (or 90% plans) – These plans should incorporate
revisions to the Intermediate Plans (65% plans) and add details that are required for
construction, such as survey notes, instructions for erosion and sediment control, staging
areas, access, and the like.
• Project Engineering Design: Final Plans (or 100% plans) – These plans should incorporate any
revisions to the Draft Plans (90% plans) and should represent the final set of design
documents. These are the plans used for construction bids.
47
Protection – Action taken, often by securing a conservation easement or purchasing fee title to a piece
of land, to ensure that ecosystems or conservation values are maintained.
Public Agencies – Any city, county, district, or joint powers authority; State agency; or public university.
Reasonable Costs – Costs that are consistent with what a reasonable person would pay in the same or
similar circumstances.
Responsible Agency – Includes all public agencies other than the Lead Agency which have discretionary
approval power over the project under CEQA (see http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/art20.html).
Restoration –Actions that re-establish or substantially rehabilitate ecosystems with the goal of returning
natural or historic functions and characteristics.
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta – The confluence of the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River basins,
forming an inland delta. The Conservancy’s service area is the statutory Delta (as defined by California
Water Code, CWC Section 12220) and Suisun Marsh.
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy – As defined in Public Resources Code Section 32320, the
Conservancy acts as a primary State agency to implement ecosystem restoration in the Delta and
support efforts that advance environmental protection and the economic well-being of Delta residents.
The Conservancy’s service area is the statutory Delta (see CWC Section 12220) and Suisun Marsh.
Statutory Delta – The Delta as defined in CWC Section 12220.
Suisun Marsh – The largest contiguous brackish water marsh remaining on the west coast of North
America and a critical part of the San Francisco Bay and Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta estuary
ecosystem. The Suisun Marsh Preservation Act—further defining the Marsh—can be found at
http://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/nepa_projdetails.cfm?Project_ID=781.
48
Appendix B: Key State, Federal, and Local Plans and Tools
Links to potentially relevant resources are provided below under the primary authoring agency (in
alphabetical order).
Bureau of Reclamation
Bureau of Reclamation – Suisun Marsh Habitat Management, Preservation, and Restoration Plan (2013):
http://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/nepa_projdetails.cfm?Project_ID=781
California State Parks
California State Parks – Recreation Proposal for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Suisun Marsh
(2011): http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/795/files/delta%20rec%20proposal_08_02_11.pdf
California Water Quality Monitoring Council
California Wetlands Monitoring Workgroup:
http://www.mywaterquality.ca.gov/monitoring_council/wetland_workgroup/
Wetland and Riparian Area Monitoring Plan (WRAMP):
http://www.mywaterquality.ca.gov/monitoring_council/wetland_workgroup/index.html#frame
Central Valley Joint Venture
Central Valley Joint Venture – 2006 Implementation Plan (2006):
http://www.centralvalleyjointventure.org/science
Delta Stewardship Council
Delta Plan (2013): http://deltacouncil.ca.gov/delta-plan-0
Delta Science Plan: http://deltacouncil.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/Delta-Science-Plan-
12-30-2013.pdf
Delta Plan – Best Available Science:
http://deltacouncil.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/AppC_Adaptive%20Management_2013.p
df
Delta Stewardship Council – Covered Actions: http://deltacouncil.ca.gov/covered-actions
Department of Water Resources
Department of Water Resources Agricultural Land Stewardship Strategies:
https://agriculturallandstewardship.water.ca.gov/
Central Valley Flood Protection Plan:
http://www.water.ca.gov/floodsafe/fessro/docs/flood_tab_cvfpp.pdf
Disadvantaged Communities Mapping Tool:
http://www.water.ca.gov/irwm/grants/resources_dac.cfm
Delta Protection Commission
Delta Protection Commission – Land Use and Resource Management Plan:
https://www.delta.ca.gov/land_use/land_use_plan/
Delta Protection Commission – Economic Sustainability Plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
(2012): http://www.delta.ca.gov/regional_economy/economic_sustainability/
49
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Recovery Plans:
http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected_species/salmon_steelhead/recovery_planning_and
_implementation/
Natural Resources Agency
Proposition 1: http://bondaccountability.resources.ca.gov/p1.aspx;
http://bondaccountability.resources.ca.gov/PDF/Prop1/PROPOSITION_1_text.pdf
California Water Action Plan: http://resources.ca.gov/california_water_action_plan/
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy
Delta Conservancy’s Enabling Legislation: http://deltaconservancy.ca.gov/legislation/.
Strategic Plan. Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy (2017-2022):
http://deltaconservancy.ca.gov/strategic-plan/
San Francisco Estuary Institute
California Aquatic Resources Inventory: www.sfei.org/it/gis/cari
California Rapid Assessment Method: www.cramwetlands.org
Delta Landscapes Project: http://www.sfei.org/projects/delta-landscapes-project#sthash.Ci0ssN4g.dpbs
Delta Renewed: http://www.sfei.org/documents/delta-renewed-guide-science-based-ecological-
restoration-sacramento-san-joaquin-delta
Delta Transformed: http://ebooks.sfei.org/DeltaLandscapes/#page/1
EcoAtlas: www.ecoatlas.org
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Historical Ecology Investigation: Exploring Pattern and Process:
http://www.sfei.org/documents/sacramento-san-joaquin-delta-historical-ecology-investigation-
exploring-pattern-and-proces
State Water Resources Control Board
Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/quality_assurance/comparability.shtml.
California Environmental Data Exchange Network: http://www.ceden.org
Yolo County
Yolo County Agricultural Economic Development Fund. Consero Solutions (2014):
http://www.yolocounty.org/home/showdocument?id=26874
50
Appendix C: Program Requirements Checklist
The checklist below is included to assist applicants in identifying and planning for the numerous requirements necessary for a successful
proposal.
Requirement Required of Expectation for
Concept Proposal
Expectation for
Full Proposal
Additional Expectation
for Grant Agreement
SUMMARY INFORMATION
Organizational
Documents
Non-profits,
tribes, or mutual
water companies
None Submit supplementary material required
by organization type
None
Authorization to
Apply
All applicants None Submit documentation (resolution or
letter)
None
Verification of
project’s public
benefit
Public utilities and
mutual water
companies
None Verify project’s clear and definite public
purpose and benefits to customers (not
the investors)
None
Financial
Management
Systems
Questionnaire and
Cost Allocation Plan
All applicants None Submit attachment and additional
required documents
None
Additional
requirements if
outside the Delta or
Suisun Marsh
Projects located
outside the Legal
Delta or Suisun
Marsh
None Describe how the project:
• Implements the ecosystem goals of
the Delta Plan
• Is consistent with the requirements
of any applicable State and federal
permits
• Will provide significant benefits to
the Delta
None
Disadvantaged
Communities
All applicants None Identify disadvantaged communities
within three distances from the project
site
None
Special Districts
All applicants None Identify relevant districts None
51
Requirement Required of Expectation for
Concept Proposal
Expectation for
Full Proposal
Additional Expectation
for Grant Agreement
Water use for project All Category 2
implementation
projects (if water
use required to
implement)
None Include:
• Water rights statement or
application number
• Identity of water rights holder
• Narrative statement of water use
and sufficiency
Noted in land tenure
agreement (if grantee is
not landowner and
landowner is water rights
holder)
Submit a written
statement from the
water right holder
verifying right and
obligation to deliver
water to the project (if
neither the grantee nor
the landowner is the
water right holder)
Water rights for
project
Any Category 2
implementation
projects that
requires change in
water rights
None • Demonstrate understanding of
SWRCB process requirements
• Include in tasks and budget
California
Conservation Corps
(CCC) consultation
All non-
acquisition
Category 2
implementation
projects
None • Submit consultation form
• Include CCC in tasks and budget (if
CCC can be used)
52
Requirement Required of Expectation for
Concept Proposal
Expectation for
Full Proposal
Additional Expectation
for Grant Agreement
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Conflict of interest All applicants • Identify parties
involved
• Contact
Conservancy staff
if applicant has a
current contract
with the
Conservancy
Identify applicant team members,
subcontractors, and others involved in
proposal development
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY
Project description All applicants Describe:
• Need for project
• Goals and
objectives
• General task list
and work
products or
deliverables
Describe:
• Need for project
• Goals and objectives
• Tasks and timeline
• Submit Schedule & List of
Deliverables
Organizational
capacity
All applicants Describe experience
and qualifications of
parties
Describe experience and qualifications
of parties
Map of project site All applicants Submit project map Submit:
• Project map
• Project location (kmz or shapefile)
• Topographic map (optional)
• Photos (optional)
• Site plan (optional)
Include polygon in
EcoAtlas Project Tracker
53
Requirement Required of Expectation for
Concept Proposal
Expectation for
Full Proposal
Additional Expectation
for Grant Agreement
Specific
requirements for
acquisitions
All acquisition
Category 2
implementation
projects
Describe how project
will address factors in
enabling legislation.
• Describe how project will address
factors in enabling legislation.
• Acquisitions Table attachment
• Copy of Purchase & Sale/Option
Agreement, or Willing Seller
Letter(s)
• Appraisal or Estimation of Fair
Market Value
• Map showing lands to be acquired,
including parcel lines & numbers
Note:
• All other line item costs cannot
exceed 10% of total land acquisition
cost requested from the
Conservancy
Submit materials
required by acquisitions
checklist
BUDGET DETAILS
Funding Request and
Budget
All applicants • Describe budget
• Submit Concept
Proposal budget
table
• Budget narrative
Submit the following:
• Budget Breakdown by Task
• Line Item Budget
• Subcontractor Line Item (if
applicable)
• Funding by Source
Note:
• Budget tables must demonstrate
how grant management and
reporting costs will be funded
54
Requirement Required of Expectation for
Concept Proposal
Expectation for
Full Proposal
Additional Expectation
for Grant Agreement
Cost share All applicants with
cost share
Include in budget
tables and description
• Include in budget tables and
narrative
• Submit commitment letters with
specific dollar amounts of secured
funding to receive points.
STATE PRIORITIES / PROJECT BENEFITS
Alignment with State
Priorities
All applicants Describe alignment
with State priorities
Describe alignment with State priorities None
Long-Term
Management and
Maintenance
Category 1
projects
None • Describe efforts to develop
approach
Long-Term
Management and
Maintenance
Category 2
projects
None • Identify risks and describe long-term
management and maintenance
• Noted in land tenure
agreement (if
applicant is not
landowner)
READINESS AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
Readiness All applicants Describe readiness to
proceed including
status of CEQA and
permitting
Describe in more detail the readiness to
proceed including status of CEQA and
permitting
CEQA All Category 2
implementation
projects that are
“projects” under
CEQA
• Identify CEQA lead
agency
• Describe status of
CEQA process
Prior to awarding funds, submit:
• CEQA documents
• Lead agency resolution
• CDFW filing fee receipt
• Certification of
grantee responsibility
to comply with all
federal, state, and
local laws that apply
to the project.
55
Requirement Required of Expectation for
Concept Proposal
Expectation for
Full Proposal
Additional Expectation
for Grant Agreement
Environmental
compliance
All Category 2
implementation
projects (as
applicable)
Identify permits that
will be required (as
applicable) and their
status
• Identify permits that will be
required (as applicable) and their
status.
• Submit copies of permits (as
complete and applicable)
• Prior to construction,
submit copies of
permits (as
applicable)
• Certification of
grantee responsibility
to comply with all
federal, state, and
local laws that apply
to the project.
Delta Plan Covered
Actions
All Category 2
implementation
projects that are
not covered
actions
None • Submit Delta Plan Consistency
Covered Action Checklist
• Describe rationale
Delta Plan
Consistency
All Category 2
implementation
projects that are
covered actions
None • Submit Delta Plan Consistency
Covered Action Checklist
• Describe status and approach to
ensuring consistency
Prior to construction,
complete Delta Plan
consistency certification
Site access to
implement project
Category 1
planning projects
(as applicable)
None • Identify landowner type and need
for site control
• Identify status of agreements
• Include in tasks and budget
Site access agreement in
place prior to funds being
dispersed
Site Control / Land
Tenure (15 years)
All non-
acquisition
Category 2
implementation
projects (if not
landowner)
None • Identify landowner type and need
for site control
• Identify status of agreements
• Include in tasks and budget
Prior to funds being
dispersed, recorded land
tenure agreement with
legal description of the
property
56
Requirement Required of Expectation for
Concept Proposal
Expectation for
Full Proposal
Additional Expectation
for Grant Agreement
LOCAL SUPPORT
Local support All applicants Describe support and
approach towards
affected parties
• Describe support and approach
towards affected parties
• Submit letters of support
• Submit County Board of Supervisors
resolution
None
SCIENTIFIC MERIT AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Scientific Merit All applicants Describe:
• Scientific basis
• Use of best
available science
• Application of
adaptive
management
• Climate change
considerations
Describe in more detail:
• Scientific basis and use of best
available science
• Application of adaptive
management
• Climate change considerations
None
Performance
monitoring and
assessment
All Category 2
implementation
projects
• Describe
performance
monitoring and
assessment
approach
• Submit
Performance
Measures Table
• More detailed description of
monitoring and assessment
approach
• Submit Performance Measures
Table
• Submit Ecosystem and Land Use
Types Table
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS NOT SPECIFICALLY NOTED IN FULL APPLICATION
Signage All Category 2
implementation
projects
None None Signage required as
condition of agreement
57
Appendix D: Ecosystem and Land Use Types
All projects as applicable will be required to define their outputs in terms of the ecosystem and land use
types in the table below.
Primary Ecosystem/Land Use Types Units Ecosystem/Land Use Type Definition4
Upland / terrestrial acres Vegetated areas not adjacent to open water.
Grassland acres Low herbaceous communities occupying well-drained
soils and composed of native forbs and annual and
perennial grasses and usually devoid of trees. Few to no
vernal pools present.
Oak woodland/savanna acres Oak dominated communities with sparse to dense cover
(10-65% cover) and an herbaceous understory.
Stabilized interior dune vegetation acres Vegetation dominated by shrub species with some
locations also supporting live oaks on the more
stabilized dunes with more well-developed soil profiles.
Agriculture - high intensity acres Active agricultural lands in crops such as fruit or nut
orchards and/or vineyards.
Agriculture - low intensity acres Active agricultural lands in crops such as row crops, rice
fields, alfalfa or pasture.
Ruderal / non-native acres Areas dominated by disturbed ground or non-native
vegetation.
Riparian acres Vegetated areas adjacent to tidal or fluvial channels.
Valley foothill riparian acres Mature riparian forest usually associated with a dense
understory and mixed canopy, including sycamore,
oaks, willows, and other trees. Historically occupied the
supratidal natural levees of larger rivers that were
occasionally flooded.
Willow riparian scrub-shrub acres Riparian vegetation dominated by woody scrub or
shrubs with few to no tall trees. This ecosystem type
generally occupies long, relatively narrow corridors of
lower natural levees along rivers and streams.
Willow thicket acres Perennially wet, dominated by woody vegetation (e.g.,
willows). Emergent vegetation may be a significant
component. Generally located at the “sinks” of major
creeks or rivers as they exit alluvial fans into the valley
floor.
4 These types are predominately from San Francisco Estuary Institute’s Delta Transformed (SFEI-ASC, 2014; page
18). The report includes representative photographs for most types (page 19) and includes a map of recent
locations where these types occur in the primary Delta (pages vi, vii, and 25).
58
Primary Ecosystem/Land Use Types Units Ecosystem/Land Use Type Definition5
Perennial Wetland acres Areas dominated by emergent vegetation with
perennial flooding and/or permanent saturation.
Freshwater emergent
wetland/marsh - tidal
acres Perennially wet, high water table, dominated by
emergent vegetation. Woody vegetation (e.g., willows)
may be a significant component for some areas,
particularly the western-central Delta. Wetted or
inundated by spring tides at low river stages
(approximating high tide levels).
Freshwater emergent
wetland/marsh - non-tidal
acres Temporarily to permanently flooded, permanently
saturated, freshwater non-tidal wetlands dominated by
emergent vegetation. In the Delta, occupy upstream
floodplain positions above tidal influence.
Saline emergent wetland 6 acres Salt or brackish marshes consisting mostly of perennial
vegetation (such as pickleweed, cordgrass, and tules)
along with algal mats 7. Occurs in upper intertidal zone
above intertidal sand and mud flats and below upland
communities not subject to tidal action. Located along
the margins of bays, lagoons, and estuaries sheltered
from excessive wave action.
Seasonal Wetland acres Areas dominated by emergent vegetation with
seasonal flooding.
Vernal pool complex acres Area of seasonally flooded depressions, characterized
by a relatively impermeable subsurface soil layer and
distinctive vernal pool flora. These often comprise the
upland edge of perennial wetlands.
Alkali seasonal wetland complex acres Temporarily or seasonally flooded, herbaceous or scrub
communities characterized by poorly-drained, clay-rich
soils with a high residual salt content. These often
comprise the upland edge of perennial wetlands.
Wet meadow and seasonal
wetland
acres Temporarily or seasonally flooded, herbaceous
communities characterized by poorly-drained, clay-rich
soils. These often comprise the upland edge of
perennial wetlands.
Managed wetland acres Areas that are intentionally flooded and managed
during specific seasonal periods, often for recreational
uses (such as duck clubs) or to reverse subsidence.
5 These types are predominately from San Francisco Estuary Institute’s Delta Transformed (SFEI-ASC, 2014; page
18). The report includes representative photographs for most types (page 19) and includes a map of recent
locations where these types occur in the primary Delta (pages vi, vii, and 25).
6 Saline emergent wetland type was added to be comprehensive for projects occurring in Suisun Marsh.
7 Definition derived from California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR,
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=67392&inline). CWHR-CalVeg cross-walk
(https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=65861&inline).
59
Primary Ecosystem/Land Use Types Units Ecosystem/Land Use Type Definition 8
Open water acres/linear
feet
Aquatic areas not dominated by emergent
vegetation.
Fluvial low order channel
linear feet
Distributaries, over flow channels, side channels,
swales. No influence of tides. These occupy non-
tidal floodplain environments or upland alluvial
fans.
Fluvial mainstem channel linear feet Rivers or major creeks with no influence of tides.
Freshwater pond / lake acres Permanently flooded depressions, largely devoid of
emergent Palustrine vegetation. These occupy the
lowest-elevation positions within wetlands.
Flooded island acres Subsided islands with remnant levees that have
been permanently flooded and are exposed to
tidal action.
Freshwater intermittent pond or
lake
acres Seasonally or temporarily flooded depressions,
largely devoid of emergent Palustrine vegetation.
These are most frequently found in vernal pool
complexes at the Delta margins and also in the
non-tidal floodplain environments.
Tidal mainstem channel 9 linear feet Rivers, major creeks, or major sloughs where water
is understood to have ebb and flow in the channel
at times of low river flow. These channels are of
high order with large contributing watersheds or
are subtidal sloughs that delineate the islands of
the Delta.
Tidal low order channel 10 linear feet Dendritic tidal channels (i.e., dead-end channels
terminating within wetlands) where tides ebb and
flow within the channel at times of low river flow.
Tidal low order channels are usually first or second
order channels and occur within tidal (freshwater
or saline emergent) wetlands. Exceptions include
the headward reaches of tidal channels that
intersect non-tidal uplands.
8 These types are predominately from San Francisco Estuary Institute’s Delta Transformed (SFEI-ASC, 2014; page
18). The report includes representative photographs for most types (page 19) and includes a map of recent
locations where these types occur in the primary Delta (pages vi, vii, and 25).
9 Additional description of tidal mainstem channel included from SFEI’s Historical Ecology Report (SFEI, 2012; page
34).
10 Additional description of tidal low order channel included from SFEI’s Historical Ecology Report (SFEI, 2012; page
34).
60
Overlapping Ecosystem Features
There are several ecosystem features that may overlap multiple primary ecosystem and land use types
described above, including floodplains, shaded riverine aquatic, and transition zones. As described in
San Francisco Estuary Institute’s Delta Renewed (SFEI-ASC, 2016), these features are important in
restoring the processes that will create dynamic, resilient ecosystems. Further details and definitions are
included below. For seasonal floodplains, applicants will be asked to identify the quarters of the year
during which flooding is predicted (December-February, March-May, June-August, September-
November).
OVERLAPPING
ECOSYSTEM
FEATURES
Units Definitions
Floodplain 11 acres The area at low to mid elevations adjacent to and transitioning between
fluvial, or riverine, and tidal areas, that is subject to flooding during
periods of high discharge.
Floodplain –
Seasonal,
Short-Term
acres Short-term fluvial inundation
• intermediate recurrence (~10 events per year)
• low duration (days to weeks per event)
• generally shallower than seasonal long-duration flooding
Floodplain -
Seasonal, Long
Duration
acres Prolonged inundation from river over flow into flood basins
• low recurrence (~1 event per year)
• high duration (persists up to 6 month)
• generally deeper than seasonal short-term flooding
Floodplain -
Tidal
Inundation
acres Diurnal over flow of tidal sloughs into marshes
• high recurrence (twice daily)
• low duration (<6 hrs per event)
• low depth (“wetted” up to 0.5 m)
Floodplain -
Ponds, Lakes,
Channels, &
Flooded Islands
acres Perennial open water features (with the exception of historical
intermittent ponds and streams)
• recurrence not applicable (generally perennial features)
• high duration (generally perennial features)
• variable depth
11 These floodplain types are from San Francisco Estuary Institute’s Delta Transformed (SFEI-ASC, 2014; pages 38-
41). The report includes a map of recent locations where these types occur in the Delta (page 39).
61
OVERLAPPING
ECOSYSTEM
FEATURES
Units Definitions
Transitional
Zones
Linear
feet
Shaded riverine
aquatic 12
Linear
feet
This feature of open water ecosystem type is the unique, near-shore
aquatic area occurring at the interconnection between river channels and
levees/banks. The greatest characteristic, and the one most commonly
measured, is the presence of woody shoreline vegetation overhanging the
water and creating shade. Other characteristics, which may or may not be
present, but which nearly always increase habitat values include the
following:
• Live or dead woody vegetation protruding into the water
• Leaves, twigs, or other dying or dead plant material accumulation
• Naturally eroding banks
Seasonally and tidally inundated areas are not included as open water in
this evaluation.
Wetland-
terrestrial
transition
zone 13
Linear
feet
The area of interactions between adjacent wetland/marsh and terrestrial
processes that result in mosaics of habitat types, assemblages of plant and
animal species, and sets of ecosystem services that are distinct from those
of the adjoining wetland/marsh or terrestrial ecosystems. “Wetland/marsh”
includes both tidal and non-tidal freshwater emergent wetland.
“Terrestrial” include oak woodlands/savanna, seasonal wetlands, and
riparian types, among others (i.e. everything other than wetland/marsh,
open water, agricultural, ruderal/non-native).
12 The shaded riverine aquatic definition is from Department of Water Resources’ Delta Levees Significant Habitat
Types. This type is also referenced in the Delta Stewardship Council’s white paper on “Improving Habitats Along
Delta Levees” (DSC, 2016). 13 The wetland-terrestrial transition zone definition is from SFEI’s Delta Renewed (SFEI, 2016; page 66).
Appendix E: Land Acquisition Checklist
Checklist for Conservation Easement or Fee Title Proposals
I. Information Submitted with Application
A table including: parcel numbers, acreage, willing seller name and address, breakdown
of how the funds will be budgeted, and an acquisition schedule
Copy of Purchase and Sale or Option Agreement, or Willing Seller Letter(s)
Appraisal or Estimation of Fair Market Value
Map showing lands that will be acquired, including parcel lines and numbers
II. Information Required Prior to Execution of Grant Agreement
Grantee Board resolution for Grant Authority that certifies:
i. Signatory has authority
ii. Acceptance of grant
iii. Acceptance of property interest
III. Information Required as a Condition of the Grant Agreement
Purchase and Sale or Option Agreement, if not provided at application stage
Appraisal that has been reviewed and approved by the Department of General Services
(DGS)
DGS APPRAISAL GUIDELINES
Assessment of State Land Commission holdings, if applicable
Preliminary Title Report
Analysis of mineral rights issues, if applicable
Environmental documentation/hazardous materials assessment
Draft grant deed or conservation easement
Copies of any instruments that create a covenant, obligation, or restriction affecting the
property to be acquired
Stewardship plan:
i. Management Plan for fee title
ii. Easement Monitoring Plan for conservation easements
Plan for signs
IV. Information Required Prior to Transfer of Funds into Escrow
Disbursement request with an original signature of Grantee’s authorized signatory and
the following information/attachments:
i. Name and address of grantee
ii. Agreement number
iii. Dollar amount requested
iv. Statement of other funds that have been or will be deposited into escrow prior
to or at the time of deposit of Conservancy’s grant funds
v. Anticipated date of escrow close
vi. This checklist, indicating that all prerequisites for transfer of funds into escrow
have been met
vii. Buyer’s closing statement
viii. Baseline conditions report
ix. Original, certified copy of the fully-executed grant deed of conservation
easement certified by the escrow offer holding the document
x. Escrow instructions:
63
1. Title company (or escrow holder) name, address, and telephone number
2. Escrow officer
3. Escrow account number
Payee Data Record (STD 204) for the title company (which completes and signs); must
include address to send escrow payment
V. Information Required After Close of Escrow
Final title policy
Final recorded deed or conservation easement
Notice of recorded grant agreement (unless expressly referenced in recorded deed or
easement)
64
Appendix F: State Auditing Requirements
The list below details the documents or records that State Auditors may need to review in the event of a
grant agreement being audited. This list may not be inclusive. Grant recipients should ensure that such
records are maintained for each State funded project. For additional details including specific audit tasks
performed during a bond audit, see the California Department of Finance Bond Accountability and
Audits Guide and the Bond Audit Bulletins (www.dof.ca.gov/osae/prior_bond_audits/).
State Audit Document Requirements
Internal Controls:
1. Organization chart (e.g. Grant recipient's overall organization chart and organization chart for
the State funded project).
2. Written internal procedures and flowcharts for the following:
a. Receipts and deposits
b. Disbursements
c. State reimbursement requests
d. State funding expenditure tracking
e. Guidelines, policies, and procedures on State funded project
3. Audit reports of the Grant recipient's internal control structure and financial statements within
the last two years.
4. Prior audit reports on State funded projects.
State Funding:
1. Original grant agreement, any amendment(s) and budget modification documents.
2. A list of all bond-funded grants, loans or subventions received from the State.
3. A list of all other funding sources for each project.
Agreements:
1. All subcontractor and consultant contracts and related documents, if applicable.
2. Agreements between the grant recipient, member agencies, and project partners as related to
the State funded project.
Invoices:
1. Invoices from vendors and subcontractors for expenditures submitted to the State for payments
under the grant agreement.
2. Documentation linking subcontractor invoices to State reimbursement requests and related
grant agreement budget line items.
3. Reimbursement requests submitted to the State for the grant agreement.
Cash Documents:
1. Receipts (copies of warrants) showing payments received from the State.
2. Deposit slips or bank statements showing deposit of the payments received from the State.
3. Cancelled checks or disbursement documents showing payments made to vendors,
subcontractors, consultants, or agents under the grant agreement.
Accounting Records:
1. Ledgers showing receipts and cash disbursement entries for State funding.
65
2. Ledgers showing receipts and cash disbursement entries of other funding sources.
3. Bridging documents that tie the general ledger to reimbursement requests submitted to the
State for the grant agreement.
Indirect Costs:
1. Supporting documents showing the calculation of indirect costs.
Personnel:
2. List of all contractors and grant recipient staff that worked on the State funded project.
3. Payroll records including timesheets for contractor staff and the grant recipient's.
Project Files:
1. All supporting documentation maintained in the files.
2. All grant agreement related correspondence.
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy
Proposition 1 Grant Concept Proposal
August 31, 2017
Project Name: Bay Point Restoration Project
Project Location: The project is located at Bay Point Regional Shoreline in the
unincorporated community of Bay Point in northern Contra Costa
County, California.
Project Category: Category 2 Implementation Project
Programmatic Focal Area: Ecosystem Protection, Restoration and Enhancement
Grant Funding Term: September 1, 2018 to August 31, 2021
Organizational Name/Type: East Bay Regional Park District, a California special district
Primary Contact Name: Tiffany Margulici, Grants Manager
East Bay Regional Park District
2950 Peralta Oaks Court
Oakland, CA 94609
(510) 544-2204
tmargulici@ebparks.org
Federal Tax ID: 94-6000591
Bay Point Wetlands, Contra Costa County
Bay Point Restoration Project, Contra Costa County CA
Existing Conditions
Proposed Project
Tidal Marsh
Transition Zone
Upland
Tidal Emergent Wetlands
Former sand dredge operation.
levees, higher ground on sand fill
Tidal Breach
Vicinity Map
Suisun Bay
Suisun Bay
Bay Point Restoration Project
1
Concept Proposal Narrative
1. Project Description and Organizational Capacity
Need for the Project: The Project Area is marginal quality seasonal wetlands, brackish tidal marsh and
uplands. Approximately 27 acres of this area is diked marshland historically used for dredged sand
processing. Wildlife habitat has been degraded by imported fill and industrial use. The Project Area is
hydrologically disconnected from adjacent high value tidal marsh that provides high quality habitat
endangered salt marsh harvest mouse and Ridgeways rail, waterfowl, shorebirds, passerine birds,
mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates. Sea level rise projections show that adjacent high
marsh and transition habitat will be lost if no action is taken. The project presents a unique opportunity
to offset these impacts by restoring hydrologic connectivity and designing for future transition zones and
high marsh habitats.
Goals and Objectives: The project has four restoration goals and related objectives for restoring and
enhancing wetlands and uplands, providing wildlife habitat and adapting to sea level rise. Proposed
performance measures describing objectives, outcomes, outputs and completion dates are included in
the attached supplementary “Concept Proposal Performance Measures” table.
Goal #1: Restore Wetlands. The project will restore and enhance approximately 17.9 acres of
wetlands and special aquatic sites. This consists of approximately 16.0 acres of tidal marsh and
channel, 1.6 acres of tidal panne and 0.3 acres of seasonal wetland.
Goal #2: Enhance Uplands. Establish approximately 11.1 acres of coastal grassland and coastal
scrub by recontouring upland areas and planting with native vegetation.
Goal #3: Enhance Wildlife Habitats. Restore approximately 29 acres of wildlife habitat in wetlands,
uplands and transitional areas. Restored tidal wetlands will provide new habitat for several special-
status species, including California black rail, Ridgeways rail, Suisun song sparrow, tricolored
blackbird, salt marsh common yellowthroat, salt marsh harvest mouse, Suisun shrew and several
Delta fish species. Restored seasonal wetlands will benefit waterfowl and shorebirds. Restored
uplands will provide habitat for loggerhead shrike and raptors such as white‐tailed kite, northern
harrier and burrowing owl.
Goal #4: Adapt to Sea Level Rise. The project will be designed to provide long term value for key
species by taking an adaptive retreat approach to sea level rise. Habitat design will ensure a mix of
diverse habitat types, including transition zone and high marsh, to help offset sea level rise impacts.
The plan will be self‐sustaining with tidal channels and other marsh features maintained passively
through tidal exchange and seasonal inundation.
General Tasks and Deliverables: The Bay Point project will design and construct habitat improvements in
a 57-acre project area. Several tasks are required to complete the project. These are described along
with a deliverable date or metric for each task.
Draft and final construction plans, specifications and estimates. Draft plans are complete and
final plans are being developed – Metric: Project Engineer’s approval by winter 2018.
Permit applications to federal, State and local agencies, including the US Army Corps of
Engineers, US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development Commission, San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control
Board, California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Contra Costa County. All permit
applications have been submitted – Metric: Permit approvals by 2018.
Bay Point Restoration Project
2
Competitive bidding and bid award – Metric: EBRPD Board of Directors approval by 2019.
Project construction and management, as built plans -– Metric: EBRPD project acceptance and
contract closeout by 2020.
Processing and payment of contractor invoices – Metric: Payment within 30-days through life of
construction contracts.
Monitoring and reporting on grant and permit requirements - Metric: Meets required submission
dates through life of grant contract.
Long-term maintenance. Anticipated to be conducted for at least five years and potentially ten
to meet permit requirements and implement adaptive management actions – Metric: Regulatory
sign-off as complete.
Experience and Qualifications: The East Bay Regional Park was established in 1934 as a California special
district. It currently operates and manages over 120,000 acres of land in 65 regional parks. The Park
District has approximately 805 employees, including planners, project managers, biologists and rangers
that will be involved in the day to day management of the completed project. The project team also
includes several scientists and engineers from Environmental Science Associates (ESA) and the project
area is currently being managed by Habitat Restoration Sciences, Inc. for invasive non-native weeds in
advance of restoration work.
Over the past twenty years the Park District has performed more than thirty restoration and
enhancement projects within several of its parks. Most recently this has included the Dotson Family
Marsh at Point Pinole Regional Shoreline in Richmond, and Albany Beach and Berkeley Meadow at
McLaughlin Eastshore State Park in Berkeley and Albany.
Mr. Chris Barton is the project manager for the Bay Point Project. Mr. Barton has been at the Park
District for 10+ years and has managed more than a dozen restoration projects, including Dotson Family
(Breuner) Marsh in Richmond, Berkeley Meadow and Albany Beach. He is currently developing a
riparian and wetland restoration project at Coyote Hills Regional Park in Fremont and a beach/dune
restoration project in Albany. Chris is the Park District lead in the planning and implementation of the
East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan.
2. Funding Request and Budget
The $2,920,000 Delta Conservancy Prop 1 Grant would fully fund the project, which has an estimated
total cost of $4,705,000. Cost estimate encompasses all hard and soft costs including 10-years of
maintenance and monitoring which will be funded by EBRPD Measure WW Bonds.
Project has $1,200,000 in local and federal cost share funds:
$450,000 Contra Costa County
$750,000 Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership/Land and Water Conservation Fund
Project leverages $270,000 in other state funds:
$70,000 Housing Related Parks Project State Grant
$200,000 California State Parks Habitat Conservation Fund Grant
Of the $2,920,000 Delta Conservancy Prop 1 request, $90,000 is requested for staff time (project
management, design review and regulatory agency coordination and permit submission). $2,740,000 is
requested for subcontractors (including design, engineering, permitting, construction contract,
construction management, design support during construction, biological monitoring and environmental
compliance). In addition, $90,000 is requested for Year 1 and 2 of maintenance and monitoring (also in
the subcontractor category).
Bay Point Restoration Project
3
Years 3-7 of maintenance and monitoring would be funded by $315,000 in EBRPD Measure WW Bonds.
While not included in either cost share or leveraging, it is important to note that this funds are available
to ensure the long-term success of the project.
The District has Grants Department with a full-time Grants Manager, Administrative Analyst and
Account Clerk who are exclusively dedicated to grant management, grant compliance, invoicing and
grant reporting. These positions are part of the District’s General Fund budget.
3. State Priorities and Project Benefits
The project supports and is consistent with several statewide plans, policies and programs.
Proposition 1: The project supports many of the Proposition 1 goals, including the following:
Protect and restore aquatic, wetland and
migratory bird ecosystems including fish and
wildlife corridors and the acquisition of water
rights for in‐stream flow.
Protect and restore coastal watersheds
including but not limited to, bays, marine
estuaries and near shore ecosystems.
Reduce pollution or contamination of rivers,
lakes, streams or coastal waters, prevent and
remediate mercury contamination from
legacy mines, and protect or restore natural
system functions that contribute to water
supply, water quality or flood management.
Assist in the recovery of endangered,
threatened or migratory species by improving
watershed health, instream flows, fish passage,
coastal or inland wetland restoration or other
means, such as natural community conservation
plan and habitat conservation plan
implementation.
California Water Action Plan: The project will promote and implement the Restoration and Resilience goals
of the Plan. The project will also work towards:
Action #3 - “Achieve the Co‐Equal Goals for
the Delta” by protecting, restoring and
enhancing the Delta ecosystem.
Action #4 “Protect and Restore Important
Ecosystems” by restoring coastal wetlands.
Conservancy’s Enabling Legislation: The project is consistent with the Conservancy’s enabling legislation.
It implements ecosystem restoration in the Delta and advances environmental protection and the
economic well-being of delta residents in that it
Protects, enhances and restores
habitat (PRC §32322(b)(1));
Protects, conserves and restores the region’s living
resources (PRC §32322(b)(9)) via climate change
adapted design to provide habitat for special status
species in areas projected to be lost by year 2050;
Provides increased opportunities for
recreation in the Delta (PRC
§32322(b)(3)) by improving physical
and visual public access to the Delta
(trails and overlooks);
Facilitates the promotion of environmental education
(PRC §32322(b)(12)) to nearby severely disadvantaged
and open space deprived community by providing
EBRPD’s naturalists a real time classroom to teach about
climate change, ecology and habitat restoration science
in the context of the Bay/Delta ecosystem.
Protects and improves water quality
(PRC §32322(b)(6)) by increasing the
amount of bayland and tidal
channels;
Bay Point Restoration Project
4
Conservancy’s 2017 Strategic Plan: The draft plan identifies three broad goals. Goal #2, Ecosystem
Vitality, establishes several plan objectives, including:
Objective 1 - Protect, restore or enhance
habitat and improve water quality through
implementation of grant-funded projects.
Objective 9 - Seek funding and project
development resources for high priority
restoration projects identified through regional
planning efforts.
Objective 8 - Fund Proposition 1-eligible
projects that provide ecological, watershed,
and/or water quality benefits.
Delta Plan: Strategy 4.2 Restore Habitat of the Delta Plan includes restoring habitats at appropriate
elevations, restoring habitat that support food webs and provide habitat for native species. The project
will restore 17 acres of tidal wetlands, 4 acres of seasonal wetlands, 10 acres of coastal prairie and use
the adaptive retreat approach to sea level rise.
Recovery Plans: Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and California Clapper Rail (Ridgeway’s rail) USFWS, 1984;
and USFWS Tidal Marsh Ecosystem Recovery Plan, 2015 http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/ es/Recovery‐
Planning/Tidal‐Marsh/es_recovery_tidal‐marsh‐recovery.htm
San Francisco Estuary Partnership Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan -
Protect, restore, and enhance ecological conditions and processes that support self-sustaining
natural communities.
Eliminate or reduce threats to natural communities.
Increase resilience of communities at risk from climate change impacts while promoting and
protecting natural resources.
Promote integrated, coordinated, multi-benefit approaches to increasing resiliency.
Reduce contaminants entering the system and improve water quality.
Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan -
Protect and Improve Watershed Health, Function and Bay Water Quality.
Create, Protect, Enhance and Maintain Environmental Resources and Habitats.
Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals -
Restore tidal marsh in diked and muted tidal areas.
Enhance and restore tidal marsh transitions and protective buffers.
Contain or eliminate populations of perennial pepperweed.
Prevent spread of invasive species coincident with marsh migration.
4. Readiness
Habitat restoration design and CEQA is complete. All of the project permit applications are complete
and have been submitted for processing. The project design has advanced to 60% and permits and final
bid package should be completed by April of 2018. The project is included in the Park District’s capital
improvement program and is positioned to go out to bid for the 2018 or 2019 construction season
depending on the availability of funding.
5. Local Support
The District has a well-developed system for communicating with its constituency. Regular project
updates are posted on its website, notices and project fact sheets are provided at park entrances. Staff
Bay Point Restoration Project
5
regularly communicates with elected officials, community leaders and environmental advocates, conducts
press releases and interviews, supports community events and conducts interpretive and recreation
programs at Bay Point Regional Shoreline to increase awareness about the delta habitat and restoration
needs at this unique location.
The land use planning process completed in 2001 engaged residents of the target neighborhoods in the
project’s development and included several community meetings. Community engagement and support
of the project has been strong and ongoing. Additional public meetings and presentations to
stakeholders have been made in the past year to keep interested parties up to date on progress EBRPD
has made towards implementing the restoration and public access portions of the 2001 development
plan.
Multiple levels of government are engaged and supportive of the project including the San Francisco Bay
Joint Venture, Contra Costa County, the State Lands Commission, Ambrose Park and Recreation
District, State Senator Stephen Glazer, and County Supervisor Federal Glover. Letters of support will be
included with the full application.
6. Scientific Merit
Project goals, objectives and design are grounded in the science of plans guiding ecosystem restoration
and water quality protection/improvement in the Bay/Delta, including:
San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Ecosystem Goals Project (Goals Project 2015) in that
the Project restores wetlands and broad transition zone in a way that is resilient to sea level
rise (additional discussion below).
San Francisco Bay Plan (Bay Plan; BCDC 2012) in that the project restores wetlands,
improves shoreline public access, and includes features to increase sea-level rise
resiliency (additional discussion below).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern
and Central California (USFWS 2013) in that the Project restores tidal wetlands and
adjacent habitats critical to marsh-dependent special status species, as specified in the
Plan.
California State Wildlife Action Plan (CDFW 2015) in that the Project creates habitat
beneficial to special status species.
California Water Action Plan (California Natural Resources Agency et al. 2016) in that
the Project creates and enhances native species conditions in the Delta.
San Francisco Bay Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (Kennedy Jenks et al. 2013) in that
the Project implements a priority project specified in the Plan
The project implements the San Francisco Bay Goals Project (Goals Project 2015) which identifies
habitat restoration goals for San Francisco Bay as a whole, with additional specificity for the Suisun Bay
subregion, and the Contra Costa North shoreline. The Goals Report recommends restoring a large
band of tidal marsh within the southern edge of the Suisun Subregion, in large part to improve fish
habitat and productivity. For tidal marsh in Contra Costa North, the Habitat Goals Report specifically
recommends: restoring tidal marsh in diked and muted tidal marsh areas to create a tidal marsh
corridor along the shore; improving water management to enhance diked wetlands where tidal marsh
cannot be restored; including broad transition zones with diverse plant communities between marshes
and adjacent uplands; and creating terrestrial buffers along this corridor to protect baylands habitats and
wildlife from disturbance.
Bay Point Restoration Project
6
Bay Point Regional Shoreline is located within the region of the Bay-Delta that has been
designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service as
Critical Habitat and Essential Fish Habitat for a number of special-status fish species, including
delta smelt, winter-, spring-, fall-, and late fall-run Chinook salmon; steelhead, green sturgeon,
northern anchovy, Pacific sardine, and starry flounder (USFWS, 2013). In addition, the Suisun Bay area –
which includes the area adjacent to Bay Point – is the focus of efforts by resource and regulatory
agencies to improve fisheries. This includes managing freshwater outflows from Central Valley rivers and
the Delta to position the low salinity mixing zone in Suisun Bay to maximize food web productivity and
improve rearing habitat functions for fish (USBR, 2013). With these regional planning considerations in
mind, Bay Point is in a good location to benefit multiple special-status fish species and tidal marsh
restoration at Bay Point fits well with these regional efforts to improve the aquatic ecosystem and aid in
the recovery of Bay-Delta fisheries (ESA, 2017).
The Bay Point Project was planned and designed using current science by Environmental Science
Associates under the direction of Michelle Orr (ESA 2017). Channel hydrology, sea level rise and
sediment supply were key considerations in designing a resilient project that will not require dredging,
but that will accrete sediment on the marsh plain to keep pace with sea level rise (Orr, 2012; Williams,
2002; NOAA CO-OPS, 2010).
The project uses a 30-year planning horizon, designing the restoration features to be resilient to a sea-
level rise of 24 inches of sea level rise. The selected sea-level rise scenario is representative of the high
estimate recommended in California State guidance (NRC 2012) and is consistent with scenarios in the
BCDC Contra Costa County “Adapting to Rising Tides” Project (Contra Costa County Public Works,
2016).
The project follows the 3 phase 9 step adaptive management framework adopted by the Delta
Stewardship Council. Phases 1 (Plan) is supported by and formulated with the conclusions, findings and
recommendations of existing publications (see literature cited). Phase 2 (Do) is based on field work and
site evaluation conducted by the project team to identify implementation opportunities and constraints
and determine appropriate actions to include in the project scope (ESA, 2017). Phase 3 (evaluate and
respond) is tied to EBRPD’s long term program for maintenance and monitoring. Post-construction
maintenance and monitoring will occur for at least five years. A maintenance and monitoring plan will
be developed using the best available science to track and ensure project goals are achieved and the
Phase 3 (evaluate and respond) component of the adaptive management framework is implemented.
The plan will also address compliance with regulatory permit conditions.
Literature citations are included as a supplementary attachment.
Diked former sand dredging site.
Concept Proposal Budget Table
Budget Category Projected Funding
Request Cost Share
Conservancy Cost Share
Personnel Services 90,000.00$
Operating Expense (General)
Operating Expenses (Subcontractor) 2,830,000.00$ 1,200,000.00$
Operating Expenses (Equipment)
Acquisition Cost
Indirect Costs
TOTAL 2,920,000.00$ 1,200,000.00$
Instructions: Enter projected funding requests into the yellow highlighted cells in the
table below. All funding requests should be based on projected expenses that are
eligible, and must conform to the descriptions of the cost categories provided on
pages 38‐39 of the Grant Guidelines. More information about the budget and cost
share should be provided in the concept proposal narrative, as explained on page 18
of the Grant Guidelines.
Bay Point Restoration
Concept Proposal Performance Measures Table PROJECT TITLE: BAY POINT RESTORATION PROJECT Objective Outcome Outputs Output Completion Dates 1. Restore and enhance approximately 17.9 acres of wetlands and special aquatic sites. (Goal #1) 1. Establish 80% vegetative cover of marsh plain. Vegetation will consist of primarily native wetland vegetation, such as pickleweed, saltgrass and sedges. 2. Provide self-scouring fully-tidal channels where neither excessive erosion or siltation occurs that might adversely affect the long term success of tidal wetland areas. 3. Limit vegetative cover of pannes to less than 20% cover by controlling vegetation with special focus on invasive non-native species. 1. Restore and enhance 16.0 acres of tidal marsh by removing imported fill and improving tidal circulation. 2. Create 1.6 acres of tidal panne in higher elevation tidal areas by elevating soil salinities to prevent vegetative growth. 3. Create 0.3 acres of seasonal wetland by removing imported fill and establishing a moisture regime that allows for seasonal ponding and/or soil saturation. 4. Reduce the extent of highly invasive species, such as perennial pepperweed, by 75% through implementation of a vegetation management plan. 2025 2025 2025 2020 2. Establish approximately 11.1 acres of coastal grassland and coastal scrub. (Goal #2) 1. Establish native plant cover on steep slopes to reduce erosion. 2. Reduce monoculture stands of invasive non-native species and increased plant diversity 1. Remove fill material that may contain soil contaminants. 2. Recontour upland areas to allow for self-sustaining, relatively weed-free vegetation. 2020 2020
Objective Outcome Outputs Output Completion Dates 3. Establish approximately 90% vegetative cover. 4. Increase connectivity between wetland and upland habitats. 3.Implement early detection and rapid response program to avoid and control weed outbreaks, placing the highest priority on those threatening to establish a monoculture. 4. Plant areas with native vegetation. This may include direct seeding or container plants. 2020 2020 3. Restore approximately 29 acres of wildlife habitat in wetlands, uplands and transitional areas. (Goal #3) 1. Tidal wetlands will provide habitat for several special-status species, including California black rail, Ridgeways rail, Suisun song sparrow, tricolored blackbird, salt marsh common yellowthroat, salt marsh harvest mouse, Suisun shrew and several Delta fish species. 2. Restored seasonal wetlands will benefit waterfowl and shorebirds. 3. Restored uplands will provide habitat for loggerhead shrike and raptors, such as white‐tailed kite, northern harrier and burrowing owl. 4. Transitional areas will provide habitat for wildlife displaced as a result of sea level rise. 1. Remove barriers to tidal circulation to allow for creation of tidal habitats. 2. Remove predator corridors by removal of levees and connection to levee corridors that extend into the existing emergent tidal marsh. 3. Remove imported fill and recontour slopes to establish natural habitat free of debris and other hazards. 4. Remove invasive non-native species to allow for establishment of native vegetation and forage for wildlife. 5. Plant native vegetation where necessary to establish cover. 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020
Objective Outcome Outputs Output Completion Dates 4. Design project to provide long-term value for key species by taking an adaptive retreat approach to sea level rise. (Goal #4) 1. Restored habitat should remain viable for up to 24 inches of sea level rise. 1. Habitat design will ensure a mix of diverse habitat types, including transition zone and high marsh, to help offset sea level rise impacts. 2. Tidal areas and adjacent transitional areas will be contoured to allow for transgression of tidal habitat inland as sea levels rise. 3. As-built construction drawings. 4. The plan will be self‐sustaining with tidal channels and other marsh features maintained passively through tidal exchange and seasonal inundation. 2018 2020 2020 2020
Bay Point Restoration Project
Supplementary Attachment - Literature Cited
BCDC (San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission), 2012. San Francisco
Bay Plan. Reprinted in 2012. Available online at www.bcdc.ca.gov/pdf/bayplan/bayplan.pdf
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife), 2015. California State Wildlife Action
Plan: A Conservation Legacy for Californians – 2015 Update: Volume 1 Plan Update.
Available online at https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/SWAP/Final
California Natural Resources Agency, California Department of Food & Agriculture, and
California Environmental Protection Agency, 2016. California Water Action Plan 2016.
Available online at
http://resources.ca.gov/docs/california_water_action_plan/Final_California_Water_Action_Pl
an.pdf
Contra Costa Public Works, Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District, and Bay Development and Conservation District, 2016. Adapting to Rising Tides
Contra Costa County Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment Final Report.
ESA, Bay Point Restoration and Public Access Plan, 2017.
Goals Project. 2015. The Baylands and Climate Change: What We Can Do. Baylands Ecosystem
Habitat Goals Science Update 2015 prepared by the San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands
Ecosystem Goals Project. California State Coastal Conservancy, Oakland, CA.
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, ESA, Kearns & West, and Zentraal, 2013. San Francisco Bay
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. Available at
http://www.water.ca.gov/irwm/grants/docs/PlanReviewProcess/San_Francisco_Bay_Area_IRWMP%20Pla
n/San%20Francisco%20Bay%20Area%20IRWMP%20Final_September%202013.pdf
NOAA CO-OPS (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Center for Operations
Oceanographic Products and Services), 2010. URL:
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/benchmarks/9415144.html. Accessed October 2017.
NRC (National Research Council), 2012. “Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon,
and Washington: Past, Present, and Future.” Prepublication. National Academy Press:
Washington, D. C.
Orr, M. and L. Sheehan, 2012. Memo to Rebecca Sloan, ICF. BDCP Tidal Habitat Evolution
Assessment. August.
USBR (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of
Fish and Wildlife, 2013. Suisun Marsh Habitat Management, Preservation and Restoration
Plan. URL: https://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/documentShow.cfm?Doc_ID=17283
Williams, P. B., Orr, M. K. and Garrity, N. J., 2002. Hydraulic Geometry: A Geomorphic Design
Tool for Tidal Marsh Channel Evolution in Wetland Restoration Projects. Restoration
Ecology, vol. 10, pp. 577–590.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 2013. Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of
Northern and Central California. Sacramento, California.