STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
WORKSHOP SESSION — DIVISION OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
FEBRUARY 3, 2004
ITEM 1
SUBJECT
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSALSJECT PRIORITY LISTS, AND AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF CONTRACTS AND AMENDMENTS TO IMPLEMENT THE CONSOLIDATED WATERSHED PROTECTION, WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, AND NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION CONTROL GRANTS (CONSOLIDATED GRANTS PROGRAM)
DISCUSSION
I. Consolidated Grant Programs
In response to statewide stakeholders requests to integrate and coordinate related grant programsand California Watershed Council input, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) staff consolidated and made available up to $138,000,000 in grants from eight interrelated programs administered by the SWRCB Division of Financial Assistance. Consolidation has allowed staff to identify the appropriate grant program(s) for the multitude of project types, reduce application nt efforts, and better integrate SWRCB program goals with those of our partner agencies. These programs are implemented under the auspices of voter-approved bondsfunded from Proposition 13 and Proposition 50, and federal appropriations. The eight consolidated programs are as follows:
1) Proposition 13 Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program (NPSPCP)
2) Proposition 13 Coastal Nonpoint Source Control Program (CNPSCP)
3) Proposition 13 Watershed Protection Program (WPP)
4) Federal Clean Water Act Section 319 (h) Nonpoint Source Implementation Program [CWA Section 319 (h)]
5) Proposition 13 NPSPCP – CALFED Drinking Water Quality Program
6) Proposition 50 CALFED Drinking Water Quality Program
7) Proposition 13 WPP – CALFED Watershed Management Program
8) Proposition 50 CALFED Watershed Management Program
Only approval of proposalsject priority lists to be funded from for Proposition 13 NPSPCP, Proposition 13 CNPSCP, and Proposition 13 WPP, respectively, are discussed. The proposals that have shown in Attachments A through C.
Not all funding available from these three programs will be committed if these priority lists are approved. Attachments A through C only include projects that have shown technical merit and contract readiness are for each of these three programs.presented for approval. The attachment shows the specific proposals and grant amounts recommended for funding from three of the five Proposition 13 Grant Programs.
SStaff anticipate requesting approval for additional projects, currently undergoing technical and contract readiness modifications, in subsequent meetings. up through the June 2004 SWRCB meeting or until all funding is committed.
II. Appropriations and Grant Program Fund Balances
The competitive funds in these programs are being released to eligible entities through a request for proposal (RFP) solicitation process. The program grants are awarded and committed based on a variety of state fiscal year (SFY) and federal fiscal year (FFY) appropriations. Appropriations for Separate discussions of the Proposition 13, Proposition 50, and 319 grant programsappropriations are provided below:
Grant Program / SFY 2001-02 / SFY 2002-03 / SFY 2003-04 / FFY 2004 / Total FundingAvailable
Proposition 13 NPSPCP / $ 2,000,000 / $23,000,000 / $25,000,000
Proposition 13 CNPSCP / $11,100,000 / $11,100,000
Proposition 13 NPSPCP – CALFED Drinking Water Quality / $2,700,000 / $10,000,000 / $12,700,000
Proposition 13 WPP / $11,000,000 / $21,800,000 / $32,800,000
Proposition 13 WPP – CALFED Watershed Management / $2,100,000 / $10,000,000 / $12,100,000
CWA Section 319 (h)
(estimate based on past appropriations) / $5,500,000 / $5,500,000
Proposition 50 CALFED Drinking Water Quality / $18,800,000 / $18,800,000
Proposition 50 CALFED Watershed Management / $20,000,000 / $20,000,000
The table below shows the grant program fund balance remaining for three specified Proposition 13 Grant Programs if all proposals shown in the attachment are approved:
Proposition 13 NPSPCP - Total Funding Available / $25,000,000Proposition 13 NPSPCP – Total Funding Recommended for Approval / $14,241,177
Balance Remaining if Approved / $10,758,823
Proposition 13 CNPSCP- Total Funding Available / $11,100,000
Proposition 13 CNPSCP - Total Funding Recommended for Approval / $ 5,559,320
Balance Remaining if Approved / $ 5,540,680
Proposition 13 WPP - Total Funding Available / $32,800,000
Proposition 13 WPP - Total Funding Recommended for Approval / $14,811,700
Balance Remaining if Approved / $17,988,300
Out of this appropriation, the FY 2002-03 Budget Act sets aside $10,000,000 from both the NPSPCP and the WPP to meet the objectives of the CALFED Drinking Water Quality and Watershed Programs, respectively. In addition, of the $10,000,000 set aside for each these programs in the 2001-02 budget appropriation there is a Phase II carryover of uncommitted funds for both of these CALFED programs. Uncommitted CALFED program funds from FY 2001-02 are currently estimated to be:
FY 2001-02
Proposition 13 NPSPCP $2,700,000
Proposition 13 WPP $2,100,000
The Proposition 50 funds are made available here for the first time through the FY 2002-03 budget appropriation as follows:
Proposition 50 CALFED Drinking Water Quality Program $18,800,000
Proposition 50 CALFED Watershed Program $20,000,000
Funds for the federal CWA Section 319 (h) Nonpoint Source Implementation Program will not be available until federal FY 2004. An estimated appropriation of $5,500,000 will be used to develop the project priority list for this program, based on past appropriations that range from $5,000,000 to $6,000,000.
III. Special Grant Program Requirements
A. Proposition 13 NPSPCP
Of the $37,700,000 allocated to this program, $12,700,000 must meet the objectives of the CALFED Drinking Water Quality Program. In addition, Proposition 13 requires that 60 percent of the funds in this program be utilized in six southern California counties (San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura, San Bernardino, and Riverside). Considering previous Phase I and Phase II funding commitments and that most, if not all, of the CALFED funding would be allocated to projects outside of the six southern California counties, the funds were allocated as follows: $18,500,000 to projects in the six counties and $6,500,000 to projects in the 52 remaining counties.
B. Proposition 13 CNPSCP
60 percent of the funds in this program be must be utilized in the six southern California counties (San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura, San Bernardino, and Riverside) also. Therefore, considering prior commitments, $4,100,000 was allocated to coastal projects in the six southern California counties, leaving $7,000,000 to be allocated to coastal projects in the remainder of the State.
C. Proposition 13 WPP
Of the $44,900,000 allocated to this program, $12,100,000 must meet the objectives of CALFED Watershed Program. There are three significant provisions in Proposition 13 that affect the distribution of funding in this program. Similar to the NPSPCP and CNPSCP, 60 percent of the funds in this program must be utilized in the six southern California counties (San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura, San Bernardino, and Riverside). SWRCB must also set aside $35 million for small communities with a financial hardship. Finally, a funding split of 85 percent for capital outlay projects and 15 percent for planning projects must be maintained. Funding allocations to satisfy these provisions was based on previous Phase I and II commitments and considering most, if not all, of the CALFED funding would be allocated to projects outside of the six southern California counties. All of the $32,900,000 available for Proposition 13 WPP must go to projects in the six southern California county area, $7,900,000 should go to small communities with financial hardship, and $1,000,000 may go to planning projects. Of the $12,100,000 available for the Proposition 13 WPP – CALFED Watershed Program, $7,900,000 must also go to small communities with financial hardship, and $800,000 may go to planning projects.
IV. Grant Project SubmittalApplication, and Review and Selection Process
A. Grant Project Submittal Application Process
The submittal of grant applications consisted of two separate steps. In March 2003, a Request for Grant Concept Proposal (Step 1) was released to formally initiate the solicitation process. Tand the deadline for submittal of concept proposalswas May9 ,2003. Six hundred ninety-three concept proposals, requesting a total of $863,654,735, were received for the eight grant programs.
Applicants submitting the most competitive proposals were invited to respond to a Request for Full Proposals (Step 2) released in August 2003. The deadline for submittal of full proposals was October15, 2003. A total of 173 full proposals, requesting $188,941,416, were invited to apply for funding. While developing project proposals, in both Step 1 and 2, project proponents were directed to work with staff from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and, where appropriate, California Coastal Commission, CALFED, and USEPA .
B. Review and Selection Process
Four review panels were assembled to review proposals for both steps in the grant project submittal process.The panels were developed based on geographic distribution and availability of funding. The members consisted of staff from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and SWRCB, other state and federal agencies, United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and interested several key stakeholders with expertise. Several review panel members were assigned to more than one panel to provide continuity between panels and grant programs. Review panel members were assigned to review proposals based on technical expertise and interest. To ensure the integrity of the review process, review panel members were required to certify they had no conflicts of interest that would bias their evaluation of the project proposals they were assigned to review. Each proposal received multiple independent technical reviews, in accordance with the program criteria. After individual review, the panel members were convened; they developed funding recommendations as a group.
Attachments A through C only include those projects that have shown technical merit and contract readiness. The review panels also identified additional projects that may be fundable after minor modification to address technical and/or contract readiness issues. These project applicants have been given the opportunity to respond to the required modifications so that they can be included in future anticipated staff requests for approval by SWRCB.
A Selection Panel was also assembled to provide a cross-panel forum to discuss individual review panel issues and funding recommendations., review the invitation lists developed by the review panel in Step 1, and review and discuss project priority lists included in Attachments A through D. The Selection Panel consisted of staff from SWRCB, RWQCB, Bay – Delta AuthorityCALFED, USEPA, and a representative from each each review panel nominated by review panel members.
After review by the Selection Panel in Step 2, the project priority lists (Attachments A through C)grant program funding recommendations were forwarded to the Watershed Management Initiative (WMI) Committee for review and approval. The WMI Committee consists of the nine RWQCB Assistant Executive Officers.
POLICY ISSUE
Should SWRCB adopt a resolution to:
1. Approves the attached recommended funding for proposals from Proposition 13 NPSPCP, Proposition 13 CNPSCP, and Proposition 13 WPP of the 2003 Consolidated Grants Program?Consolidated Watershed Protection, Watershed Management, and Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Grants attached project priority lists; and
- Authorize the issuance of contracts and amendments to implement the proposalsjects?
FISCAL IMPACT
Local assistance appropriations authorized for Proposition 13 and Proposition 50 are sufficient to fund the project priority listsrecommended proposals for Proposition 13 NPSPCP, Proposition 13 CNPSCP, and Proposition 13 WPP.
Funding for the federal Clean Water Act section 319 Nonpoint Source Implementation Program is contingent upon federal budget appropriation in federal FY2003-04.
RWQCB IMPACT
Yes. All RWQCBs.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the SWRCB:
1. Approves the recommended funding for proposals from Proposition 13 NPSPCP, Proposition 13 CNPSCP, and Proposition 13 WPP of the 2003 Consolidated Grants ProgramApproves the attached Consolidated Watershed Protection, Watershed Management, and Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Grants attached project priority lists; and
2. Authorizes the issuance of contracts and amendments to implement the projectsproposals.
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING PROJECT, AND AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF CONTRACTS AND AMENDMENTS TO IMPLEMENT THE CONSOLIDATED WATERSHED PROTECTION, WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, AND NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION CONTROL GRANTS
WHEREAS:
1. The State Water Resources Control Board (On June 22, 1995, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted its Strategic Plan which requires the implementation of a Watershed Management Initiative (WMI) and coordination of many SWRCB and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) activities under WMI;
1. On April 28, 2003, the CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY and the CALIFORNIA RESOURCES AGENCY ratified an MOU which includes establishing a statewide partnership and framework for improved integration and coordination of watershed policies, funding, program implementation, and establishing the California Watershed Council for Stakeholder involvement;
1. SWRCB) released the Consolidated Watershed Protection, Watershed Management, and Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Grants (Consolidated Grants Program) Request for Concept Proposals in March 2003 soliciting project proposals for eight interrelated grant programs from Proposition 13, Proposition 50, and federal Clean Water Act section 319;
2. The SWRCB released the Consolidated Grants Program Request for Full Proposals in August 2003 soliciting full proposals from the most competitive selected Concept Proposal applicants;
3. The full proposals were reviewed for technical merit by review panels consisting of SWRCB and Regional Water Quality Control Board staff, state and federal partner agencies, United States Environmental Protection Agency, and CALFEDBay – Delta Authority, and several key stakeholders with expertise. SWRCB staff also reviewed the full proposals for contract readiness. Attachments A through DThe proposals recommended for funding are those only include those projects that have shown competitive technical merit and are contract ready; and
4. Grant program funding recommendationsRecommended project priority lists (Attachments A through C) were prepared by review panels and forwarded to the selection panel and WMI committee for review and approval in accordance with the process specified in the Step 1 and Step 2 requests for proposals.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD:
1. Approves the recommended funding for proposals from Proposition 13 Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program, Proposition 13 Coastal Nonpoint Source Control Program, and Proposition 13 Watershed Protection Program of the 2003 Consolidated Grants ProgramApproves the attached Consolidated Watershed Protection, Watershed Management, and Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Grants project priority lists; and
2. Authorizes the issuance of contracts and amendments to implement the projectsproposals.
CERTIFICATION
The undersigned, Clerk to the Board, does hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of a resolution duly and regularly adopted at a meeting of the State Water Resources Control Board held on February 19, 2003.
______
Debbie Irvin
Clerk to the Board